(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Alleged Communists In State Dept HQ 5"

• STANDARD FORM NO. 64 



<* 



6 



i ^ffi Ce ^^ — ^L $M>Wl # UNITEb ■^■kietGOV 



TO 



FROM 



SUBJECT: 



, - DIRECTOR, FBI 

^Jf SAC, WASHINGTON HELD 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOHBI 
ALLEGATIONS OF SENATOR JOSEPH- MC CARTHY 
LOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 



DATE: 



RELATIONS COMMITTEE 



April 





Mr./BUDENZ, in his testimony at 3:25p*&, stated that he was 
appointed Editor of the Chicago "Daily Record" in 1937* He described this; 
as an organ of the Communist Party in the midwest* He stated that this paper j: 
"folded up" after tte STALIN - HETIER Pact. He stated further that BRCS8TCER ' 
warned him at that time £hat he, EOTENZ, was to be made Editor of the "Daily 
Worker" in New York* He said that BBOWDER mentioned that "you have no techni- 
cal difficulties*" In explaining this, he mentioned that BROADER informed him 
that he was the only member whose record was clear and who did not have some" 
question concerning his immigration status* it 

In response to a question- from Senator HICKENLOOFER, Mr* BUIENZ the: 
mentioned that he met WILLIAM Z .^FOSTER jupt prior to the time FOSTER left for 
Moscow to become a CP member. In response to another question as to -when 
he met other big Communist functionariesZ/ne replied that he had n©VBREDGES 
in 1936^flELD in 1937; that he had me^STACHEL immediately after he joined 
the Party in 1935. u A ' . 

Senator HICKENLOOFER then asked if during his associations with the 
CP he had ever observed any of the functionaries telling untruths or lies. 
Mr. BUIENZ said that he had never observed any functionary ever lying to another 
functionary, u 

Senator GIEEN then asked &r* BUIENZ if he had made his information 
available to the FBI* Mr* BUDENZ stated that he had and then remarked tte FBI 
is one of the finest agencies in the US Government, I tell them everything, 
I am proud to have worked with them, and I give them as anich time as I can. 
He then remarked that there were certain limitations to his time, that he had 
a teaching position at Fordham University, and that he had other private work 
which necessitated him spending considerable amount of his time and that accord- 
ingly, he. had been unable to make available to the FBI the entire information 
which he had at Us disposal. 




Communist cause in Asia. Mr. BUIENZ re 

and that STACHEL and BROTOER had so indicated to 



Sfenator HICKENLOOBSR then asked if Mr. BUIENZ could evaluate the worth 
of Mr*VLATTIMOJE to^tte CP, and Mr* BUIENZ stated that he would leave such an 
evaluation in the hands of the Senators and remarked - I have told my storyJbo 
you. He was then asked if IATTIMORE was considered a valuable adj$in$g$ft £he 
* ' - - - - »«- plied that LATTIMORg^gaiR s Considered 

RECORD - ■» t $W$£ 

Mr. BUIENZ was next asked the significance of the lettars:,^^ki^d^^^ 
ad previously referred to ajCJais testimony, and he ^pl^xfted^tlb^f. U 

121-0 " 



which he 




#*» 





*• 



4 



WASH FIELD IETTER TO DliECTOR 

IE: SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE KHEIGH DELATIONS COMMITTEE 

these initials were customary, that they were used by the Party in designating 
the identity of the person concerned if that particular person was in public 
life and his identity was not desired to be disclosed. Mr. BUDENZ was next 
asked if he knew of any occasions when LATTIMDBB might have been used as a con- 
duit for information from Asia to the CP, and he replied that he knew of no 
occasions, other than those that he had mentioned, namely, the times that 
he was informed by STACHEL and FIELD. f 

j 

Mr. BUDENZ was asked if China was considered the vital spot as far \ 

as the CP was concerned, and he replied that it was and added that in the CP ■> 
it was considered that American acquiescence of a Bed China and a Bed Poland j 
must be obtained. 



Senator HICHBNLQGFER then asked if Mr. BUIENZ would say that the ,; 
efforts in China on the part of the Communists were of the highest priority \ 
and he answered that that was true, and he remarked STALIN has said that wars I 
aren't declared, they are made, and Mr. BUDENZ then stated that World War HI 
was begun in 1945 ♦ Senator HTCKENLOOFER then asked if, in Mr. BUEBNZ' opinion, j 
did the Communists assign their most important men t/ the Chinese problem. j 
Mr. BUDENZ stated that that was true, that GEHHARlHsiSIER had had that assign- | 
ment before he went to Germany, where he today is attacking the US. Senator J 
KECKENLOOJER then asked if the US was a target for Communism, and Mr. BUDENZ j 
answered that it was and that it had been since 1945 and then he added, in ' ■ \ 
fact, since 1934 $ when the Communists formulated their policy - the plan then 
to drive the US out of the Philippines and out of the Pacific. Senator HTCKEN- 
LOOFER then asked if Mr. BUDENZ knew that LATTIMOHE was assigned to handle \ 
Communist activities on the West Coast. Mr* BUDENZ answered "that was where 
he worked" and then he said he was also Editor of "Pacific Affairs" during 
that time. ; 

Mr. BUDENZ was asked if the Communist apparatus was divided into 
two classes and he said that he could best answer that question by comparing 
the Communist apparatus to a tree, for example, he said the rogrcs could be 
Gompared t£ the underground and to such members as EISIER and^ PETERS, who sent 
WHITTAKEfi^CHAMffiRS to Washington to steal State Department documents. Mr. 
BUDENZ said the open Party could be compared *o the trunk of the tree, and he 
mentioned that names like BflDWDER and his own, who were open Party members, 
could be so classified in this regard. He stated that the men and women members 
of the CP could be compared to the branches, that through the branches their 
information was obtained and instructions issued from the roots. 

Mr. BUDENZ was then asked if he knew of any instances where members 
of the CP had gone underground. He mentioned Dr. NOHMAN BETHUNE (ph) from 

(2) 




4 



WASH FIELD LETTER TO BISECTOR 

HE: SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 

Canada, who he stated died in China during the. Chinese civil wars* He said that 
after ffiTHUNE's. death that BROWIER, in a meeting, stood up and announced that f 
Dr. EETHUNE asked that upon his death he be counted as one in the Army of STALIN; 
although during his whole lifetime/fais Communist affiliation had been purposely •' 
hidden. BUIENZ then named BELLA^DODD as another example of an underground Com- \ 
munist worker, as well as FIELD* v , 

. ' ■ ■ '•.'.- i 

Senator HICKENLQOFER then asked Mr. BUIENZ to explain who, in his i 
opinion, was the most effective in the CP, the open member or the secret member. 
Mr. BUIENZ answered that both categories work for the great conspiracy, that ; 
both are equally effective, that they need the open membership to give semblance 
of a Party and that the underground is effective in espionage operations. He } 
was then asked if it was a fair assertion to say that the American people had 
little knowledge of Communism, and he replied that that was true and then re- J 
marked, BROWSER always said that we are a small Party, nevertheless we exercise! 
great influence. [ 

" ■ ■ ■■_■'. ■ ' . i 

BUIENZ was asked what his capacity was and he said he was an Assistant 
Professor at Fordham. He was then asked if he had told Fordham officials of 
his background and he replied that, although he had not told them in great | 
detail of his background, he knew that the Fordham officials knew who he was j 
and knew his background. Senator HICKENL06FER then said that if BUIENZ were 
associated with Fordham, it gave a certain weight to his testimony but BUIENZ \ 
quickly replied that he would not connect Fordham with his testimony here 
and did not wish that Fordham University should be involved in this matter 
in anyway. He said that he desired to stand on his own testimony. Senator ; 
HICKENLQOfER then said that BUIENZ has been a Government witness on a number 
of occasions and he presumed that the Federal authorities had vouched for \ 
BUIENZ* BUIENZ replied that perhaps this was true but that again he did not j 
wish to standi upon this reputation but wanted his testimony on this day to be f 
#udg§ddon its own merits ♦ He was -then asked if he could return Monday (presuma- 
bly April 24th), but he replied it would be better if he could come back Tues- 
day; SP an Executive Session was scheduled for lOtOO on Tuesday, presumably 
April 25th. At 4:10 pm, BUIENZ was excused and thanked by Senator TIDINGS 
for his testimony. 




TESTIMONY OF BRTGftDIER (ENERAL ELLIOTT R ; ^THDRHB. US AMI - RETIRED ;■ \j 



At this point, over the vigorous objections of Senator LODGE, F0RTA5, 
Counsel for LATTIMOHB, was able to have Brigadier General THDHEE sworn as a 
witness. Senator LODCE advised that he was told that if THORPE were sworn, ; 
Senator McCARTHI had a witness whom he wished to. offer but this aspect was ; 

"(3) 



to 



4 



WASH FIELD LETTER TO DIBECTOR 

RE: SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 

not developed. FORT AS brought out that THORPE had to be heard today inasmuch 
as he had to leave town tonight. The testimony of THOHFEiJaB-cctotaineA^-'^lth 
in the form of a press release given by THORPE. 

THORPE advised that he had been in the US Army for some 32 years; about 
one half of . this time was spent in military intelligence and that he had served j 
in military intelligence in the Pacific Ocean Area, the Philippine Islands, [ 

Netherlands East Indies and from 1942 until 194-6 had been Chief of Counter- | 

Intelligence Corps under General of the Array, DOUGLAS A. MacARTHUR in MacARTHUR'si 

Pacific Command* A copy of this press release has been furnished to the Bureau, j 

i 

Briefly, the release sets out that THORPE on three occasions caused 
an investigation to be made into LATTIMORE «s loyalty and that he, THORPE, as 
a result of these investigations believed LATTIMORE to be a thorou^y loyal 
US citizen. THORPE, after the war, was Militaiy Attache at Bangkog, Siam and 
served for a time at the Army Language School, probably in Monterey, California. 

After THDRH5 finished his statement, he was interrogated chiefly by 
Senator HICKENLOOPER. THORPE said that he thought the investigations made j 

under his direction were sufficiently thorough to clear LATTIMORE and he allowed 
LATTIMORE to see confidential documents in LATTIMOHE's capacity as Adviser to 
General THORPE. In response to a question, THORPE said that LATTIMORE did not 
shown partisanship for any country, other than the U&# (At 4:25pm, Senator 
TIDINGS left, mentioning a previous engagement and gave his proxy to Senator 
GREEN.) 



THORPE was then asked if he had found any personnel of the IPR to be J 

subversive. In answer to this question, THORPE said not so much subversive in j 

the sense tha^' subversive means undermining the US but that there were a lot of \ 

people witl^Pft "making a living." The rest of his answers to this question j 

trailed off^knd was unintelligble* 1 

\ 

Senator HICKENLOOPER then asked*en LATTIMORE came out to the Orient, 5 

and General THORPE said in 1944 and in 1946, and that on these occasions, j 

LATTIMOIE was included in the general investigation made by General THORPE* s j 

section of the IPR and that he was also investigated as a general security \ 
matter. 



THORPE was asked by Senator HICKENLOOPER if he, THORPE, had access 
to FBI files, and he said that he did not, nor did he turn over the results 
of his investigation to the FBI.. General THORPE then said that he had a re- 
presentative of his CIC Section with "HOOVER" and that the FBI had representa- 
tives with the General's CIC Section, 

(4) 



u 



L 



WASH FIELD LETTER TO DIBECTOR 

HE: SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE 

General THORPE was. then asked by Senator HICKENLQOPER if the General 
had access, while investigating LATTIMORE, to the files of other US Government 
agencies ♦ General THORPE was unable to give a complete answer to this question 
but said that he was not sure whether or not he did have access to other Govern- 
ment agency files but believed that he did not have access to such files • 

Senator HECKENLOOFER then asked what sort of confidential documents \ 

LATTIMOHE saw. General THORPE was unable to answer specif icaltojmt said that, \ 
in general, documents were classified all the way from "tgp^wSSaiJJ to "restricted;, n 
Senator HTCKENLOOFER persisted and said that he presumed that LATTIMOHE must have i 
had confidential documents when he was advising the General, and the General ad- E 
mitted that this was probably true that LATTIMOHE did see confidential documents* r 

General THORPE said then that he did not favor recognition of Communist < 
China and said that he considered Communism a great threat and that he had ; 

volunteered to appear at this hearing because he was concerned that innocent 
people were being labelled as Communists • General THORPE was ,tHen asked if J 

he recalled a report that had been prepared by one E. HEHREKjioOHMAN (ph), 
which report w as pres umably sent to General WTLLOUGHBI (General WILLOUGHBI 
was an AC of S j ""[ to General MacARTHUR) . It was brought out that E. HER^RT 
NORMAN was a Canadian representative. General THORPE was unable. to recall [ 

such a report and said that, to his knowledge, NORMAN did not file that report b7D 
with him and further that he was not within the scope of WILLOUGHBI" 1 s command 
but reported to the Chief of Staff of General MacARTHUR. (It is noted that 
MacARTHUR' s Cfcdsfof Staff was General RICHARD SUTHERLAND, and that General 



WILLOUGHBI, as was concerned with combat intelligence). 



General THORPE then advised that he had begun military intelligence 
work shortly after World. War I. In response to a question, General THORPE j 

said that LATTIMOHE was an adviser of his during World War II and in part 
of the CIC Section. LATTIMOHE' s role as adviser to beneral THORPE was never 
entirely clarified. The General then said that he did not know very much 
about China and his interests were chiefly in Japan and Russia. The General 
said he would need a release from the Secretary of War before going into 
greater detail and Senator HTCKENLOOFER then said that he wanted the whole 
relationship between LATTIMOHE and CIC brought out. ■ . ' '/ 



It is noted that General THORPE lives in Minnesota but has a house 

in Rhode Island about which he is now concerned, and that he had flown in* 

to Washington, D. C. yesterday to appear today. He said that he felt it his 
public duty to appear. 

■ . (5) 



V. 



h 



> 



WASH FIELD IETTER TO DIRECTOR 

HE: SUBCOMMITTEE OP SENATE FOREIGN IBLATIONS COMMITTEE 

■■"■■'. ■/ 
FOHTAS then said that he had assurance that after BUDENZ had finished, 1 

he would be able to present General THORPE and Senator LODGE asked him who had 

given him this assurance* FORTAS was unable to state with any clarity where 

this assurance came from but said he knew of no reason in law why he could not 

present his witness. Senator LODGE then said that he was no lawyer, that this 

was not a legal proceeding and that FORTAS was not in a court room* FORTAS 

finally admitted, after several questions, that on Wednesday, April 19th, he 

had spoken with Senator TIDINGS and FORTAS implied that Senator TYDINGS had 

told him that his witness, General THORPE, would be allow4j- to appear today.. 

FORTAS then said that he wanted to subpoena FEEDERICK V^FIELD, because a 

few days ago a commentator, unnamed, had said that BUHJNZ in his testimony 

would link FIELD and LATTIMORE (FORTAS 1 statements were difficult to follow 

because he had no microphone). 

. FORTAS then tried to get into evidence an affidavit which he said 
was made by BELLA DODD, whom he described as a CP member and a member of the 

CP National Committee from 1944 until 1948. He also said that BELLA DODD j 

was expelled from the CP in June/ 1949 • When asked why DODD did not. appear, \ 

FORTAS said that he could not subpoena her. The affidavit was not allowed J 

in evidence and FORTAS was not permitted to read it.. The hearing adjourned | ) J 

at about 5:05 pm. ' j . y\ 



(6) 



JAMES O. EASTLAND, ht 
CLYDE R. HOEy, N.p. * 
GLEN H.TA¥IjOR, IDAHO 
HERBERT R. OCONOIVWD. 
HUBERT H^.'UMPHREY, MINN 
A. WILLIS ROBERTSON, VA. 



LLAN, ARK., CHAIRMAN 

JOSEPH R. MCCARTll 

IRVING M. IVES, N. 

KARL E. MUNDT, 

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, MAINE 

ANDREW F. SCKOEFPEL, KANS. 

ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, MICH. 








V> 



S^ 




WALTER L. REYNOLDS, CHIEF CLERK 



'Ttttnileb J&taicz Sycnale 

COMMITTEE ON 

EXPENDITURES IN THE EXECUTIVE 

DEPARTMENTS 



June 27, 19^0 




Mr. J. Edgar Hoover 

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation Miss Gandy 

?/ashington, D. C. . 

Dear Mr. Hoover: 

Some time ago it was publicly announced via a letter from Mr« 
Peyton Ford, Assistant U. S. Attorney General, that: (1) The 
F. B. I. had examined the 8jjr5tate Department loyalty files 
which the members of the Xyaings CommiTJleirT®^ 
and (2) that this examination by the F. B. I. disclosed that the 
files were complete and that nothing had been removed therefrom. 

Last night FultomLewis, Jr., in a radio program, stated that this 
was not true j that the F. B. I* had not made an examination of the 
files in question. 

I I would, therefore, greatly appreciate knowing whether or not the 
1 F. B. I. actually has conducted any type of examination of the 
I files in question and if so, whether your Department has actually 
I found the files to be complete with nothing having been removed 
\ therefrom. 









\ 



I very much dislike doing anything which mgjreven remotely involve 
the F # B. I. in what has been developing into a rather unpleasant 
situation insofar as the present loyalty investigation is concerned. 
However, I very strongly feel there has been too much of an attempt 
on the part of some to hide behind the Very excellent and well earned 
reputation of the F. B. I. For that reason, I believe the request 
for this information is a reasonable one. 











RECORDED . f J 
INDEXED - §1 



JtAcCARTHX i. 

i MM:. •& 




yw» 



■A 



w. ■:,<■ 



1^ 

1 r_-> 



0,1 




FEDERAL BUE&AU OF INVESTIGATION, 



Room 5744 



kd 




, 1950 



TO: 



See 



Send 



Director 
.Mr . Ladd 
.Mr. CI egg 
.Mr. Glavin 
.Mr . Hart>o 
.Mr. Nichols 
.Mr. Rosen 
.Mr . Tracy 
.Mr. Belmont 
Mr . Mohr 
.Mr. Carlson 
.Mr. Callahan 
.Mr. Nease 
.Miss Gandy 
.Personnel Files 
-Records Section 
-Mrs. Skillman 




Section 





tT 



riate Action 



and. Return 




^ w . / &,t_ *a b^ ^Jr~ /*%& 



: :'LLOSiy,"(: 



Clyde Tolson 




Ji- 



lt 1 






£:$ 










r ' -v^'- 


\."J. S .\"*,> 


'^.^V^jr^:/^ 




L£~ 


^S 


«' ^^B 


"; ?"' 


'^ :/ :::-*' 




?i 


^ 


■.«. ■: 


"■■■: >?..j K; ■'".) ■£: ■'* ■'v;X : *- 


*. i ' ■*",'*' 




'■>■ '"' ■•' v \ '* .. * * ■' ■', ■(•*'"■•""■ '-■'''. '-' 




W '■'" 


> -'"::'X 


N^J;r;';,'l;'^ r ;y 






' * a V« • • v-f'-'Ji : 'a.m. ~->r -yXvii /- v' ■ *b 


**l':'«a»f I 




■$i 




v v * V 


.■ r ..< r -. 


•.-. ■•'/;.' /■■ •';':■: :•. 5^i : ;;:>';>^- 


r .«>- 




\. .,• 


• ' ■''.'>* *':. "**■•"/' y.'^.\.y. 


y ' ■ , 


V *' f" " b; ' 


V* „';;V- ;,V^K"-V-' ■ " ,r 'jv.'r ; :.- - 


*"v'-"; 


.^'' ■■ 


** ■, ■" 


y ;^^"Mgl-^ii, 



':v^k 



* 






! ISk 






H^r,*^-. 









^ 



'»•* 



fmvm : m^mm^ m 



u 






I&i mmmt&Mg m-lb* itiikx^^^^ &i..ih* Sw^V^ 1 ^^^ 






i 




>^4 to^tlSifl^f^# 'ia.r^tiist^ .^p#ili^M^«t« ' '^dL* im* #£miil*«wd m l^ngpmn* 
m tht pim®m& pallor* -It- wt twiiM.<tat-i^-J%^ 
- dipmdrat oil 1*# . WJ tor ti&ft • %^#; : «f i^ftwi-ttt^ii €Wt»»ttnf . !*&*: Mj^E^^^ iidUi 

aKmf'^ta 'milted/ -itfee fiiiolltMi* rfiar «*st* '.%n»-'«f r iii«fki oonwqwmtly, thii FBI tos ' 

$%Wdm 3 «%•#'. -•-■; -". " '*■■•:■>*•.■■",'■:■"■: .-;;'.. V •;:'.■",-.■;'.;'• v-'-'v ': : ■t;.^'- ■>■■ ''.■/•>;.■ ':/^;;>'^M-^-- 

'0. ; .\ It i*«* indiG«t«d that Gh««k« ttHMftb^' "ttgr ^ii*M»~ -3WBC '^m«aEn» ft : ;mii«r o£ .•eaoqiw.^^ 

;'.tteti^. X* ; wwi; iiio « %*t«& tl^/lihi/fSC tot |«N^«df * eimvt nhioh p^j^^rM* top ifeft^ 

ibmi t£ri fSZ &ii product nop proof tlmi a^y ptrfton w»« an *«tual *«#nt i 
. eae* to >ho» #«pton«g* or violation of Ffjr^^al 16^ It ^ae w 

in, ttoe 5^«^teM»ai| 5lMi-iat-:^W^i»^ la tht opinion ^f -tti..WBU* : " li ***-: |i§?^ 



tiid ino^ty 4a .^MtaAiA i*#«Miiv«ci iigf *fe» 13^ 



^. 



ff-r^ 






ri«iMni' 



sd<;J.i, 









\~? .^%^J^ il^i; ;:•-;■-■';, . v '>-^ 



■"fe^' ; 



■176 JUL / 10: i9S0;; ; ; 



T?**^ 









^t.iY":^-:.'^* 1 .? 









i 



Tolson_ 

Ladd "• ■ 



««$&& vt#«*^\iJii* #ridtes#i.nigr 'iwttwt ftajrty^ to ai« loyalty * 

that p««cn« who «««k to chtag* «hj$ v «i#tljBg £ 'mm ®£ our <fcw»»i^^ 
-tortimtotif l$jr«& if tb* -9te*Mw#i& «&$ ti^ts^i c*f ' the QnLtog {&*%•* on t^s^st^l ; 
aub^tlva ^toe^M^ t^^gisa^lar ^ ili^td^^'; ^«m .$My 'SieSW iiap^&^fcj 

H«*MU I* W mivk«4 i» : coniw^tioa with *t*&tiE]& o*«&*J»®fc a? tfc* Owstf twwaijr ttiftt 

ift'1^--8«M!^^iwit' S»«# 1&« S^^nt flowfc i»dl«i*hp4l thut mmtimvB -of tfet Canenudbitf 

tte/Nsmttict^ iB.'iK>si«^ta*^ a I*g*X Bn?ty* : Xfc isi^..*te^i4:t^% ,*&*,$& 

k«T WMtfy fcy ' jumt* ^t#$ ' to* &* ^t^?w^«di a* ^JtyJUUT to\ *h# 0m*m3M $ ■&&%<$&£ 
'fswloV ^HiiNi ?• - 1h* smsHa Sad no* pa«#6d oi *h* va^E&iy of %%» in%«*p3p»*ai£oa 

$f ' m£ t Icl*nt *onp<*Wftr and in^ui^ *ay* avftilftftU* ■'- fto wi^^^fcw* '4aHtt«r- ■'ttttij L : 
•aA-of t&# 9WC <» l*e*l ^t»^t*» '■*»•. #ort$i3^^ that it&ootmi fa? *mr failuw to 

«*wlN4 $ft >w* i*. .3»tafe «f »d^ti« 'iftfiftitmtloft* *;■■ ',. v - ' ; - t - ■ ,;!. 4 :: . 

4% wat #&&&&& lfa*%%lm &*&&:%w% ®f .Vtm im aetisAiiim J^i«tli«i*« -.i«#d ^ «* 
t^i^ft^tj ittiSd* a^mt i^ftm w&.fl&ttify-.lfr:^ nt^.MMi tofr tfe# ^eo*wy.^ 

^i fit %i4 not /»% |i^Nliij<id« Ifmovivv M«h «*ploy«« ^1t«ii3i«0<i »* to ^g^at m { 
^^feablii «ftwfr «rw* bosom* /*&* ita>J-*et-'of «a mt^nifiv* -4l)i«ai1qr lsvwtig*tioTi to 



% nftkmr ^&m*m& «Ef^i«i«* F^^miio^^ Mia fist #§%4Ktiig5ii4 pxi^ttof of 

^rwtignii^ *t«4 iMMBmttad *^ tUt ^ep*i*t«0s* only »u* iM^mmWm a^ intfee 




,*»jij 



Glavln_ 

"BeLtnohC 

Mbhr _.'%•■ 

Tele. itooi&_ 
Nease ■ , -. 
•(iantly..- 



«^B4*r«ffi of ;.jw^«r '*» ^os«- ; t|i^lia^' to W«^ttm'.««i^^^ *?;.#!a, 



VV.J2.W- 






'■'.?.:-,']. 












^Attorney General and courts. The request i^de ^ : ^%V. • i - 

: not incapable of proof f and v/hether a nan.l9a member of the Coimunist Party iis-iiot I'- 
.' improvable Mnce the FBI. has or cian^pei^traW the Pa^. - There fore * the failura,>^ | 
- of the: FBI tp provide proof which would star^^^^ | 

. JBI*s own administrative limitations: with respeci to the work it does without the -X 
X-v statutory, dutyi ''>;it.-wae:. : ^t^nt»id. out 1^t -the 5BI investigators were not subject :L 

;..y,;: to ^direotibna^ control of the Oepirtinent and their sources could not ^be evaluated » t 
*'*X f K© Alternative was to strengtdton the B^rtsieht 4 ©: investigative service or . ; ^ | 

C : : utilizing nk>re: exten^^ other agencies. . : %.., "; --/^ ;.: .:';;• ; : JV^xT' 

; • It was considered desirable :^ 

Government *s intelligence and eounter^inWl^g©»c© inyesi^ig^tibx^ in order to provide^ 

the information needed for the direction' of ^ -the Department's foreign and personnel | 

polibiss^ require an ^ u^erstanding with B6% Hoover*, the Attorney Qensfal,; 

.;.•; and the Director o£ C1Q 0: It waa;iiKjioat0d ^t^t ^h^'roi/A^ropzlatlpi]^ Act carried / 

- a provision that:inyeetigati6ne should ^rco^uoted on b General 

: and Secretary of! : State* It ^se^ be practice difficulties { 

in effecting closer direction by the Department over the investigative wpric of the / 

• ;• Wl. The accommodation character ^ of vt^ ^I.fis service to the Separtment was J; 
;• •, intolerable and the \$BI imist perform as \a ctt^ct service of obligation to the / ^ 

J Department or the Department could riot fxAfill its obligations* The '-"Department gfC^i.. 

: should ©sqxLore the possibilities of a closer arrangement with CIG# Varioi2a ; ;Q^B^^^)0p 

: were included in the survey and it was noted that certain individuals weTOdisp^^^ ; ||tf 

^ as sebindty risks for such reason^ as alobholiBp^ homosexuality/ and indlscretill^'^^l 

" ■*-'-.-:: ' : •; '"• -. '• ~ -*"•*■*•". •■■ : ' •.".'' *.; ;.:•....•:•' .•-■>.:•*■.. • -* ■ . ; . 4 ^ -. .-,.. .-•/ .. :•;•'•/; ■-,'..;•" -•'^^-^f'M 

•-;t ? At the conclusion of the report, reconrniendations were made, '.among ' ; whi(^|^g 

•':•"■' was one that more discriminate use ^should be made of the investigations cocduct^g^^ 

by such agencies as the FBI and the ' possibility be explored of using additional fep^if^l 

^ agencies such as tfte ^easi^ jfepaxH^ Every case of a rejection or ^^p^ 

• termination on evidence of foreign agency should be a cause for ^ Gbuntei^intel3ig^Se^W 
: ; con^.deratioh ard report to ttie Department*; -For this reason^ careful reexamination ; 

should /be made of Idje; rple ;6f the 5BI as at> intelligence agency serving^ the Depart^ 
ment and propel 1 , use of the facilities of .010 and pther agehoies for, :.• the : same purppse. 

^ '£ '■■. It is noted that a copy of tiie Klaus report was recently obtained by the 

• : Biireau from the State Department thorough liaison* Howevoty on AprilV2j 1947^ there 
? were obtained through Haisonw^th the copies of a 

t memorandum prepared ty:lfr* ^ Dennis KLinn^ 1 ^ foxroer Bureau Agent with the State Depaurtmerit, 
:^ -entitlied "The Stoiy of S report* In a 

; r memorandum; tp you from Mr; E^ Q. Fitch pn : April 14> : ^ was made of the y : ' : 

/Changes m^e ^ I^us doncarning t^ of the tnie "^fapts^;^ 4 

> \ in each instance* At that time the Kl^us report was not available but the memora^^gl 

" by Mr* Elinn quoted pertinent portions of the ^us report. r^P^^ 

Poison " -:, :.7-,-:'- ;, _ :\;;;:,v; T^^-'T^A W ; : &^49^ : •■ • ; ;\. .; •; .. : :; ; ' v:. : " : : . '"' 

..^ ■•'■'•■' ■'- ? ;;.:;" . A checkis being made to detexmine whether. any of the individuals name ^ 
clegg in th e *!Case Studies 11 Section of ; the Straus report are presently employed in the '^S^m 
Nic^if^* 01 *^ 1 " ./Government* ' If it is deteradned that they are still employed , appropria^l 
I!1I Action will be taken under Executive Order Number 9835# " 



.Trticy_ 

Harbp_ 

' Mohr '. 



; Tele.; Roo m- : [ t *'/•,-"-. .-"..'•"/"*■ ■ r \ '■:/ \ -\> . ^ *..'/'■• •• -V ""'1 X'': '^''.'.'•^ '."■"' :',:.'"'* '■*.' '''.«* X ~°l* r-' -> >• : ■' •■ ' ■-" ; '."-•-.;'■ ""<, 







->' r 




. ! -.1 


:■? 


.•i'.-i': 


- ; : 7 


-.*'"'• " 


.<-: 


• • • ■ . • 




.'.''"; 






/.. 


' T i '-',*. 


■W-3 


■~ 



"> i " 5 . 



H- 





<-. ■: :-\. 


:"%<7 
.I.',-.. • -'*' 


f ■ 


•VW7 / 

77 ■ ' 


'77 r " 

7 " .> 






•♦■ • >' 7 


7 • . *:' •'•''' ;7 /• 


: '^V ■■;■ 


, . '^Ai 


•j •■ . ■ 
*■•■>. 


"'; • .' *.- 


i-i '• *•<: 


»- .'• 


7,7 * .- .^ v .7 


' 3 v *■ 

.' *' • 7 








■'$>J. . 




MS. 


B. 


8. 


? IiAD® ; ^' : -, 


•',' >•'•' 




.:^% ' 


a'a ,7 


?...'?.';< 


*:-A' ;: ' ; 


-\"'U- •••'-» 


* y-' 7 '" 


7 -•• 


.. y> v v ; ' 


: S^ 


'••iK 






*.,V" '-.: 


/V ; 


7HB. 


•:ju-- 


H. 


.3-.. ... 


'.Vr/-» 


»■* 





"-ixT. 7 * .7 7' "V ':■■>' 7 „'.'> 



€ 



'77:1 



, s 20.' law ' 



June 20, V 1950 :■ 



: /« 



PtiRPOSl: 



STAfB B2PAB5BI2SI REPORf' IStflflEB 7' ' '■••■•'' '.v.- 7"7-. 7^Y; : 7 ;:; ;>: V; "7.' "A A' 

«suB?BSf ; OF..i«spAasMEBfAL ^®sqhks77': 7 77 7# :.;; ; ';-:^^S^A v -^ ,, --^^ v ^v ; ^'— ■ ' 

SSCtJSIff IS?BS#10AIIOIS H BY s7KLA&S .'■'■ 77J 7-<- vV^?-''&- J *&:-7 7 :.~v;. 77 V '-- 7 
tsmsf5i*3k6 ■< '- ■ 77 .7v:7 >> * -;7 . :-7 -v: : ? 77 : ; •*7- : -77' : 77777. ■ : A^'.^AA' 

I A W: -7 

,7 7-^n* 

7 -.:%^\; 



,77v7v 



'■vF • - •■ 
7r J ;-7 l 



fo ^ stounariie . the a>ot^captibhed ^ report p^cuant to your request* 






: l ;^'A'<-K'. ■ -A'' ' A*/t' 

: 7-^.>7.. y • ' " - •'• J"" . ' -. . 7 ^;7; . v"'/? 7 •:>■■.■ '- A . ,>;Vit 7^7^'-'7 7f.V'-<'77 7 7^>,v>-.--?v ,..• ^7,-/ -.. :--^v .v.^>-t .-.'-^ ^^"'>; " ■•* -^ ;••/ ' ', rM*k& 



77. ;'■- pi 



; ...-:. •••-' : ;| ■•; On ^e'jS t ^1950/ Jea^ etatet ^;,^|^ 

In aubetaaee t^irt^^e or four yeara ago the;Mi implied the Stated l^artmeatt..^.;^.^^^ 
vith charts and diagraHrg purportedly showii^ pre-Soviet indiyiduaie in the '.State .;S .^S|^ 

ermined that the fflaterial used hy Senator McCarthy emaaa ted :$$;M 



Departments It was detisrained %>**&* mo «ai/w*c»*:«»cu wj w CUO ^i n^voi ^ ^auavcu .. ; ;,^, 
from the f State D^artment in a. irepor Wa^% 

3i 19^61 for Joseph Panuch, former Deputy to the Assistant Sefti»etary f or Administra^||^ 

copy/of thisfr^ort has heen ohtaihed hy ^the jlureau*^ The alleged clmrts .;; **"" 
prepared- 



,tion. -A copy; of thief r'epor t has heen ohtaihed hy the jlureau*^ The alleged charts ,; IMM 
ared by the JBI appear oh ^ page ?9 of « the report wherein it is etated in part, ; --" ; ly^2 
^FBI has prepared a chart, now in this possession of Hn Banherian, which purparts fe||^ 
to show a number of f agehtf .ffg* •Gomniahists •;■ f eynipathifiere 1 , and^ •suspecte* in |the |^ rf 
State Department as of May 1$, i9^2»^ ; fhere followed^ ia^^ in 7each category tT^^j 

"^* ■: :• On page JO of tlfe; report, there ',is -.'.'set 'f to th^ the' Verbatim. ; t 
Critical to the Bure^whic^^ has also Ibeen^^^ 

determined that the. chart in question was in fact pr^ared in the l^productlod ' ;: ^^ 
Branch of the State Department and hears t^^ 

pf.'Staike.i Preliminary Survey .; of the Communist Iirfiltratioh> prepared May 15, ^^6*. fl ^|^| 
The fbliowing is a summary of thei report prepared fciy Mr • Klaus set out In sections p^%?k 
as the Report ae'ti^^iy --'^^0iard-.«- ;J^ • ^;p ;--" ; >;.^^>^v r'-.'^i/ s ^" .: V^" *" v i"VV\ ? -^- ^ V" >^. *^"i.-> : -' ^ ? V?7 -'V ■-; *" i'V:'',|^^^ 

;.:;■ - : - - '• Introduction - ■..:-■ - :••■.;■> ,7 ■.>-n-.-x . ^;^--;v;- : ^v?'^^:^7.:-!r.. ••.■"". V-V^ ••-'• •• f '-.> fe^ 

■ - .^ ■'■■•• :■-.•..■ . . ' •■ • - : -- % :'■..'/•■•■ ■'■.■. : .- •.. •:..:•'*'.:■•■■■ ■--.v--.--'--- 4 7 ' :. F --i' -7 ;'7 v A.- ..,, i- ■ • - :te$ft£l§ 

•- ., !jv ! .'r:- ■ .-.■■.;, .. , 7' ;• ,-*'* '...7V •>••■'■ •<■!••... •.-;.■ - - ' ■'.■■■ .:. V • . '• ••..'-■: '.•"-• f ; - •.•'"■ -7 v , ,- ■ ,- A> * ' • .* .•<. - 7 .-.-» . . r • 7p^V-'® 

v ;: $&P ftr«t part of this: report^ isthe ^thority oh which ; the J -surrey '.'■<- ;~. f-^^^ 

• wasvmade and its limitations.^ Conclusions set forth in the introduction ^fwe.;^,^!^ 

. 7 ; Ul) The organisation: was effective in applicant screening Taccording to rela- ; y T |!€tp: 

"Itoib ^ tiv ely crude and normal standards of ordinary ^loyment**t '-"She Organisation ': ^^0M 

■'•■ y- di d not seciore the Diepartment from penetration^ professional foreign 'agents* ■■■a\^$0M 

7ciegg_£2lt3) >^he ii^plled ^nd sometimes ;,€^li1(ftiVit^itote of ideology and opinion which ^ \||p: 

; *' oi«vin^_*^re -appited^to security raised^ policy and of their- effe^r^^^ 

. Nichois^^ the character and personality of perso^el to he admitted; t^ 

^-T-^rt^) The standards df proof werel dubious. 7.7V - ■ ?. ' y ' * : ''-"' 

Tracy, . • ' '-, * •.'.'••••..." .'.• . *' i ■. ■ w . • • - ^ • ' - '7 / • ■ 7 * ''1, ' ; * '•. •• • ■ • ■ * - - ; '*.•:.;• '7- 



PERS0M2L SBCURI TT SH^QST PRSPAEED BI ' S '■■• KMBS : 



^••..- V 



Harbo '. ">;';• ••. 

/Moar V^ ; -'.'. yS W* eb 

Tele.' Room v -*■' 



a::a;:^ 

_ 7'7-7^^77v7 7"-7r: ;"77;7-?^7 : ^777 v "::: r7NOTi^RBKP7 •' -71x1^ 

sSt7««««^777|77^ 

:;7 A" 7,;---7; . ^. 7- 7.7'--- - -^^a: y. ;* : ? ? :.^v;, : -'7.7^77^ r.^ ^^Wa .■* ' '- a iWW$ 



• '- .'"V" . ■■" ',\ ■ 


' -.' n ' j "' * . ■• 


- "^tsseL- r ''-• 


'.>vi " ; , \ > 4:^^;.v^'4^r.v :, ''.v.; ■:'■; ; 




(■^', '. 




* ".' ' V.' *-' J ' *■ 




-^p-- : 


* i . ',. '•-.'■* j,;."V"-* '-& ■ '"'■ 




■* ■*.'■'■*'■ < » 




£' -'r\ >jf •*.■■ *-/.>: ,\ v $*. * r '■:'..?£ ^ • 




i! ./-'■.■■; ;' 


■ y «^-. ; 




", • *" •": 


**'■' "V 'r . 


-."-*' ^ 


' 'J'-! ;'.■'■■ ■- '■' * "-*•'. *\ ' •' *■■%*'-'■■*■."' 
















."»*■,-, r » < i- -i, - " " •„ *» • ~ l .' 


- ''' ,f ' ■'■■". '.^ 


"...•'. : ■ *r ■ . 


*• i ' ". ■'■''■» '' i ".' 


,«, >, -. * . ,T -^.f"' -■">.", ■'" ■ : T ' ' ^ .■■''•" *'■' 










^•l^: ; -;^-'. 


*.'•*'-' '" ■■"' 


" •■ , r "V^ : 


: -' ,"■'£-;"- -'' v ■ /"' : r;.'.- ;>/■■;! 7r....- v'/ *£v:. • 


















1. -"-.' ' * '. * 
































*\ 'V*C.' r? ■ 


--'•■-■.'. i' • '■-'<■■ 


,'V' >' '; U ; . % 


■'.,'■■"*";■• ^' ■ V'5'\--'-'' ■ '■".-.-''•' -'■'"""V-'"' "' 


































.'•' *' - v < . " " ■' 


.*.*'■' ' ' ■' i 


. .t ■'..'• **- , 


■ «•■' '- V ,- 'i'l' ' '<; ,'V ' .* '*" . .. '■*■'"' ■ ■ 


■"**',' : .' ■ K . t; "**'' 


.\^\/\"' ***'. 


/ , '.' ! ^ : 


. w'V-- %\ - ■ Tf--- : !* -^'V ''^'vr ^ 










' ' - - % '.' '•** * 




■\ . '.' 


•.■'.■■ '"■' * ',. '" *'-■- <ipi. ..' -'.' . " *- / 


"- \-' - -j .: J . .,'- 




'■•'','■ 


. ■■■_.,. i;: tl :. • T V.-,^1> .- .*- ' ,-' 








.".,-,{*.• ; ■!■'• .*'. '■ -.v • ** -, ■* ■■■*..- 


*' \ J ' • ' ' ■ * ' 








.""' , -. -. ■ . • 




\ \ : -.J- ■'-■'-* 


• ■* ".*..'"."■-.'■ -..'■ •:'''* ;: .is*,\ ''"'.■'* ■ -,■■'"■•' 


fjindin^ 


i'.'-- ■•'"; *■ 


f. v.; ■ 


.•'■':-"i- ; i:.' >^" ' !' ' ? ^'':-' ; - ..- .",'^1 




■ -.* * .,'J- : *' 


--"■ '. ' :£.*/*-" ,0 I":, '. **. '• > - r --ir'-J-VV '■■' 



« 










, . -v / > ;.< 






: obnsletigd of applicatioiy ^ f o^ prlginal employaient && trw8£¥* to Sep^toietit^i rpll^i 
-■.She s^oond q^prlsed ia^^tigaiions of ^i^lpy^es aJ^fi^y qb the fpll$» 3Jie ■■ 
f/tn^tiatlpn^pf' 1*t0^@ i?ive0l%atl6h9 ime described^ ;B|)©cia3L c66es of inveatig^tl^! 

;; : :?:M^Ida^o£-ii^ fvfcctlGM, organizatioi 
;^v v a^ ^00^9 of the ia*f?t4ga^ 

^'^fof-sed^i^'w^ and ^rieaa 

; 'A aijd gft^tiiig nsirjy 4P3clved ^pi^at^ : «^#;d &$ to 

; ""V.thfe bi^Mgatlon of C3A| it m^ the 

[':v &^i&-. £& tjpainl^g ^Wl the \i 

rmethodg of CSA parobedusref ,' |t «aai noted that th@ mothocte And tradition^ of the 

Post Office Insi^etora 1 ^^ offic0i?a 

: ; [oS <5SA were foi^i^ v^i^iito^d'^'to-; ^thtkt' fitoi^ce*,: -'^ : v : V -\.: : : U 

; , lii connection ^ with the &cope 6f the ihveatigatAb^ 

', ^ the>e T i# ■ . -i^f-iMg^a^^. -©i * ^t».trMo1#i0&i9 ^«* q^m%j&$^ to guide %e iifrestp^ 

gatiofts*^ .in the #i^l ; 6dae ? t^ la to verify ft^teaents joad^ b$ J. ;.. 

. . ajppiicant^ on the application fp inf bimtion %apoitted 

ia usually obtained by conaultiag jN>utiha souPGe^, police record? i House Ccromit^ee 

: ';..'.:■ ;i ; ; : It m® ailp no^rifi ;^ti0 ^ppfet itoit bo ip^es^igatipii of a f inanoial -p 
; oharaoier i$ eonduoted and no ^ attempt is mad© to tjtmtik iiiccagae tax records • A j || 
^criticism n^s mad^ rof,.;-t4ite ^tj^.'^f revi# aet up in QSA ^daXap of the GS4 ; y;^ ^ : [ 
■ personneli . It i«as stated ^^i.-^e-'fl^id; agpnta prob^toly hata ^uffioient <■-..• J ; 

;: : trait^i® tP ^ondw of th§ ; |y 

aigenta had prior tr^^ BepartniaRtt in idaologiaSf ; 

' ; in o<M* d#pi?ions and iagisiation withri^spect to tfa$ f ivil ?at^io§ ©mpl^pen^ 

.-:.; It t waa atatad th&t.i/'^t^tv&i^^^^ttey ^a average Jeigent kn%a thp dif ferpc^aa . 

::^-; ; \,-::^ il of^ 

,:-,:;:>, ; v';' ■.,,: l!hi$ orga^i^ti^ antijlrely s* a iiaiaon off ioe bat#pn 

: Pthar ini/astigativa agpnoiea, particularly the : fBt and CSA* Od tens ibXy, the ee|*/; 
; J ; ixp to t^^iffff ca& ii^^^ tigatAone and re^ua$i additional iny^atigatipiaa isvnpt; :\ % ";;/: 
adequate. l\irt^eimort|-t^^ access on a ,, pPI i ^onaX t, basis to current 

;V : f&t investigations and ; inf oikatipn f |c^i% into J^ m& not given ; 

-; tOjCSA*; According to the report* the #61 sent to COH aeciudty repprta isfeioh in 



•:- : i 




















->-. 






&.:.&::■. ■' ^^-W^es werev*"reasoh9'ble?*v ^Morabter, the Commit tee ma^ *hV d 

):^: : ;^ 

■ : .'■/; :■■'■-:: y : : v application of their s tandar^s.vva?h ; e Committee tased rta ■ ieCiaiofls = 
'. ■:..■.■■■■- . °t .: 'd isapprp-va 1 oh ;th6 ^'etlstehc.e : . of 'deroga tory, inf ere'hcer from what • ■ ' : 
m- . r .J'vv;. ■■ ,-.-■ -are really ambiguous : fa;ots^ yylt; was -conceded tha t -the' ; Goiiiniltte%< '~: ' 
i «'-y y : %:; : •?*$ <iu est ad ;• gupplamehta ry; 1 ave si igat iba - in ' 'some, ca s es '. shehV h s'" : > ^: : ' ^>" -- 
v;-;./,^';^. ; «eishborhbpd..Md; Giv^l ; ;S,eryice. Cc^issibh^efaeeics- but pybnd ! such? ;t " : ' • 
y- vV.'?- '':. routine additional, inyestiGa tibh {/the- Committee' -was eohteht tb hase v ; 
> ,-.;?' •■;.•;.*" reconMendations '.on'-ihf erehcesi; : :: furthemore, :the Comiaittee ; dis* 
,■.;:■;.;. regarded eligibility; r^tihgs 'tftiih9r'Q%vX-l:&Tviae'-KQnM.e'8l6& and - 




on 
Role bf'theff&E 



y- : > •:-, . /v ; « : " y-y - ; ■:'."A,;>f^-.- FBI .furnishes the;, Departments inf orina tibh -'in. the'f oriji . ' / • 
■yi^'y^ °$ ■: routihej .cheeky ;;for;VCSA>;- ; or . .for , COKy or--: in* the f orm of unsolicited : 
•-1''""'; : ;v : vv ■■/.I'.epo.arts'- of. interest <*b in ; e:CDepar;tment A" Mentioawa'symade^that' at : - V; -'."•■ 
. : ;/;.. : ^r. : \ f ;;Vttt0-reque-8t--<>f officdrsrof COft/the ; FBI ^ conducted "InHrestigations or 
,;.-.-: -foreign-career persoimelrapplicahts- where ah element of dotipt had 
-#=•■.* ,•• -/. :*eeh prdauebd, . ' It. , was,- noted that; the; Department, relied upon the 
>:. : t'A y<-y:- ? ^^&%$^:b^bks wei'e.'c^.de': asva.- matter of accommodation^ not of -^ ; 
::vr;.-.,v;- -• : $ ut y,*^i^; hb -^ the V '^' •■ s v- • .. ; 

^•Vi ; ?>' ; -;: :i^ s stigatib%^^l^th%^mbre; i :':th^^^^ was dependent onr the"' ' :; : ; '•' 

■' :>$ : ';■:;■■' 7 F 8$ f br.info 
? :^: M ;VC --V , .^.^. : *- iw ^^-bf vuhusuai. methods of ihter^ogatipn and investigation." . 

ki\-.'-^ ^ 7>7 v ; 'V^v ■•?fhe.. v IBiI > prQ^ 

/ v ^ ; :;-.;r vpf : .agent s y ^ .-. 

*• •/" :■*;::" ."Depa rtapnt . ;.a s bf : May. ..IS, viM'J' .. '" It v was.- learned ! s ev' era 1 . moat hs-iate'r- -' ' ' 
':'<:'^4-.->v: ;that the number had-; been ? ' consider ably reduced^ - . ■■ '■??'■ '■':■■•■ ■■•■'/•"•:. ■: * 



-v ■« 






%2 : - 



'•'...^ :■•"•> ^ : '^^^ prodiiicea no convincing pi^bof ; 

;:1>iiat;any^erso^^^^ in otheis words, FBI had i3iade: : 

5 >;,n6-;:ccis-e ta B]SpW-es|ii^naij8' , -Q^:-:^^^^^ of "the* forei^/'^gent^^v^-' ? •• 

'•! ■ • H$gis t^^fl^lftdt 1 y \0£~&M£ ! l&& ie^iSla t iony ; iri-any ;"ca ^e*^' ; :- : ^He'-< word % '^ ". 

: ;%gent !i weia^therefore; Ming used ~ ^jrOTSl or by G^ : ^ to-mean ";; 
\-;;'8^ty;a; ; :Sus^ect\ : in ; ..'"/r'.V : : : 

; ; -V V ^ V rt ^o v PTOof ^^ctual i?0i^im P^i^yViriemterslkp had been ^ v ' 

' ^rQduced;' t>y;fBI>, : ; %&& 'word Coimtmnlst^ the reform >. Wa^ used ^rely v V : . 
: ; toi; de6terlbe"cas^r : of ; a^li ;close vaf filiation as "-.to - lend credence /fc 6 ^ 
.; a Jiypothedisthat tli^ fact-- --." 



•'r'^V^^stiil -.to/be-proved^.^^ T^'J. '. 



V'VSr.-- 


■}}!$■'■$; 


• ^?^ : ^"'' *^!y "' •^^'^' -"?\ * -^^V^^'rtf.& 


..>■*;'■ 


, .' 1 " .'■'''..■•?< 






-. j .„. 


^£3^ 


,,'.,.; v lb,.-. 




"> ' V 


-v .., ., tf V. 








^c^c"^-^^ T 


^'^H 


^Sm?^ 









•tf-O-. 



;^.J>'~^ V 'y5V /J 






'■' ;A £ 3*' : %* A '?K A : l£:l^s co&^ qUe$Mdmbl& A- ''A 

;®-/^M : tlii' OpinidaW tM.;fSf "*^^^^ i^^t/l^v.^ '$-\</;; ; 

. :/> ? "A? ' checks/ 'it. ^eel^M l^o^tlw^ ^^Wh^»|:;lto^ei^ COS '^ceived ■] .; :" 

fip-f^i£ tioft was : of & cp^eafc h*Mw& a^ ■ { ■/ /;. 

'^A' A - " ^ fe )^9f&# $i * : ^:1fte^cc«^ it ^$- ; ^^^S^is|ing a&d i^ . -| • ^ A 

■A\^<^ : ^caaear: ( #i^ canfi&erilbl^^^^ that ■ Shformtioji ; ^a';f ux^v ; | ; - "'.; ; 

t ;C:'v;"i^^ *o CON afttf withheld 1^ 'S%nding^: /-V-'- ■ •' 

5 A v \ "*■ Y- : - orders An; bh&cMl;^ to - th£ dl^tfiii^i^ ; ^e^^onri^l i^^i^ir^ ; the; ■ type s of , ; repo|^^;',:; . >^ : V ■. v 

;f i: y \ ;; ;a©Mbe3?at^ly /^hheld ^ mvM bk w^^ f .; u " 

■ -;^; :;;;;Hq^y«p,. i feft9 <>P^Gn *^ doe^t&tiduet •■'.';'.■ 

i;// ; v .fi#»12i^ Instigation $# the sedU^^f|e3# and ^o$e l prodiict v K^ V. 

;7-'\^;"act 4n : ;«c09*d^ . ? ;r^|>>.;.; :: 

v^V*VC$hi^^ .S8I v eaj^bg^ t^ Security Ccafedttee/r/j 

>:%^^S' aft a^ti<mai^ ^it^orii;^ 

> : ,. H ':<;-. on A pe^oiml ba$i& ' id th$ ; : fi^apiiBeh^ .a^qnitidr^. of ; '©ecreoy:, 7 ^- ' ■'/{ ■ \u ■ . fi. V- ', ';' i' "* ' 

y- % ''/ - ^ : i^c^Jlngi to i^mtlori iii thi© i^po^t, tS& ^Gn^3$ibiiai appi^i^itlc^ : ! 
v; ; v \ ; ; ;>"ip»^4^*!teft..4 , l». Ill BhoUitT act ^£q? the itt<>3mey General and ih^ Sec^a^jr of - .". 
"^ ¥ ; ? '• ^t^i® • ' - It *paa doubted that the, ; D^3rtfaant japtii4 eecercjLse taote oorit roi oj^r : the - ; .^ 
£ 3 3; detail of fBt ^ei^o^^d c^hcliSibd^that v i>*lh :|xE%ctiee 4i isould c©i*alnl^ be iaipjppbable ♦ 



B 



w 






allegedly: justified by -the aor^y 



T* r.^-.- ^. ' ? -. >-."t--ir ''^ ^- *>^? .v^" v v i^' : - "S" ^ : '"*:: V;- vrVv 7^^> t i--"^?t : 



3 V .:3A'-:V- 0b^gtiV$s;^ 

fCi^'s A ^^'^'- i$\ was • ^oi6s©d^:'the f: f 0jp^^;\ft-hfifi& > ■fc.hii^-lSi6|?&* darigeirs ; to' : 5fecu|oty- ; ::■ ■:?' : / 
^vaXv^'.Trthich- ^ : r no^ '^^W: f r^yf^x^l^ wei*e tft^ dangers ,crf-.i^it^tioa^ 

■f^-'j-*- : vijti'vtjhS r ;i^Jja3rtaftejEill: l^^.^jpi3^V^^*iV!!$a' ^ : .b*^WM3s& ■ torfK^tions : and -special ;int©irest3-; 
i" : Mi r should the y^weliyi^ : poli(?y; or ; ■o^3^;| : ^ ;■;;; 

^0 : . -;. oyer his; teiim ' 



^ .>;-.. -i^,"!' ' v' , ,i-'V-i-:' rt 1 '*'. f :■-■'-. v.,-'" -■' ,* -^*;-'" 1 '■&'■;• " : \ }b •f-'rlvV-J:: 






;:£c 









7\;\ 


■ '■■"^?Vv J*' v - ■>*','■'* '.^"v* ' ' -■ '■■ - ' 


/;^ ."'/*■' v ", ' . • ' '\ '■' - : i* "'.' . ** : ." ' •■'.-.' 7.- '*-*v *V".vS- ' ■'' v ." -V-VY-ivYV '*■ 


>v°. - 






f&;\ 


■M, ■*..' 


v ^M-.^;w^-,: ■■^•^ #' : ^ 


^•SviW 5 - ' A^s'v-r** - ^'^"-■'.'. '•' -'• -5 L^'^V?'^^> j-^ 1 '' "' ^'■■'5^:'V %&? Y' ; * '' - 


•1' ^-.' 


" ;^ y^%; S|^ f : - v%- ; 




- + ,. -V, 


' : '"^'i^^Nf:i/-;^&;'t ^%>'""^</ 




.■?'?/.' 




•*■„•>■'• *"' ' ' .;.**>■'"- .,;'.- ■ - % " V \' -' '■ \ •;-':'■ V,. ''■>>'' "''■..' :' % 7 -'-£ >\. ^ ■' /' *'. V V ' V '. ,;' 


'- ' 


? ^^^'^i^- %/ fc&f : - ' : Vv4 : '\ £••' 


•^Vi^fc^,. > ■^t*vg.?;.-i. :*>V.^ .. ^^'^v-;-* 







V * I 



Li 






r>v. 



:' : \*; ; ,/W /r i : .^o "ia^ io^eaia^^^ 

wiitrol v©f ^f 1^$^ of to ; i I 

;^ ! ':iits«^st^V'0f: 'w 5&e 6pn«Ai^5i^»a3 that per$c^e£-< ^ 



8tak<fe^ag M f »^s0bj^I: i^^l^f fe 



"l fl; 









according - W fe^ :; wport m4*$; : ptis»^^$ : ^ ttie prMlnce of the i^irs^naei ^^riti^a ..; 

iaiies; should be considered^ such ^ :i 4fo&m^^ C^Os^&k \^"fVl v- 

i^tei^ ^ the ^ 0%»«ra^ < 

and CON should be concerned with ej^ajeat^ ±0 semi^ty alo^r td: the aspects )6f v| 
j^Ejefcratidfit Jasjr 1 dr^^ ge^i'M^fe*: :7^j^«»^^ 4a the\sli^^«a^| ;: :'\i- 

a ^oi?f aaioa la thfct y^tinctlciJDi 1&^eea #^ &£ p^ufp#ie dr poli^jr aJefe# jt^^rdi» 

^r purpose Ncc^4%?^^ ©epai^fent that ,ri© ei^i^e ^S3©q^e ; ^i^^ ' 

applid^it d|d ass00iate w|tb sa^ppet? it beeos^a -,4''^t^y;*f '^joosf m$ : :p^%; ';*$'. ; | ;^ 
.teased .QiiVAtwdi^^ >>.; ■■■; '^|>- '■^^ , : •:'*.'■■ V ' ."•■:-" ,; >' : - ; '"i/^^-'V^^ ■' * J '£ *■** > 



t .■.'■'■-■• ■ V* •'.,,. ' ~' : &*-\' .'■ * r- : • ,( - 



:. ^v". .';■.- f&er& «ere fet^t' Jto;thM:r€^rt special . jtegifcia^ 



••>■-; 





«*►' 




; , iv'..-. 




s* 


:;';%■ 


*' 'r ' 


>■' 




; 


'■J' 



'..*. j" v \ 






: ~ \' ■•','"V^'-« J " v - : - ' -■..■■ - ■'V^^-^ 












i' s ^ . ' , -- -- :>- v ■ -, •- e * ' ' 


^;^^V/-':.f\'^^;^y'y\ : '-: E ";:f ^ /<>■'■ • ■ -::'^V'v'^ 




':''. 4 . -. V'\, -' '-'V ' -- i ;•*":•/-.- ' .v\v "^ 


r^v^y^W'^''^ 1 ':^:^ • ;> ; - , K^ : :' ;: -\-3 r '$i^yi ;; ' 


■' """''' 


• v; : ; : :K '^VO' •.-':' : ; ;.r' :'/- : -^- : ' 




h- ." ' ' • ' 


'"■ *-• v ; /»* ~ xi^. *.■ * >-- ; - /'Af J : , 


*-""' '■"'V' -" 


> ; v?; .?£*; Ji^A.x', / •'•'> '" . • \ : - ";• />/ •:*•;. '>-v^_ • 'I' ~* £r'/j ~, '-;.- N \ :^:!\%yv£ /£..-^ ;.'% ' 


..;•. •■* •":;■. ; XXi vvv4;-^'\ ;'V>'' • : ; . ' .' r /-"\-'. **'■/**> 


• "5 *■■ . . '* 



i^K* /; &' 



v?- ; ; ; It was ;st&tbd,;t^ 



■^:J.^ ;,f. eligibility far amplpy^ the word Is assumed* ; Howeyeiy ">£ ^ - 

^;v?^ ^* : ^ notba that , in the ;C£A r^rts-^ch woi^s as '"lilSeifal^ ^Sociali©t« %3$^.f;^ 
V V 'V 'Ia ^Gbmstotilst* were ass^aed tb : be^ l^eirchad^ ^' 

^.^^ ';/ ;' ; :> ;: ^ ; -y:^:7;;-v ■■■"'•■;//■ X^^HW 

^pjl^y,^. .. . >7g^e ^ ra^ berde&l^ 

^;T^^^v^;'iiit"ii' should hot Jb^peraittecL ;tp v r^ult till ti^\ v dl^^;riea3t: . oiP-, -|Wpl : 02re$«i whbre ■; 

H v v^ " *:-:tfc©- findings ^rer^ • dr^W ^ rem ^in^one ^d "beli ef f whi ch eduld not , be held «^ by: 1 .-: M 






,:'. ^ . J -• 



r l ■;.;!.• ■.• i ; : , ; Sy^ence that a person, uttf*^d .cprt^^-^dwsi'i^;, jfl^^dsj";; fiurtheif 

: : investigation but ; ti^re sh^d ^e : ^ 

" ^iiitiinate di^Ioyal^/ y 1^^ American history 

l 'X' v ^. should demonstrate^ that ^ersoiis trtio ' seek tt) chaxige tho veid^ting form of oxtr; ; : : v 
^ ^ goyeri^aent may s^ill;be iateisely loyal ^ on Accepted subjective standardise to #r; 
^ : ;, ;0 •'•; the: government and traditions of : the Bhited States ^and ttey ar^ hot necessarily V 
-•Vx.-v-,.: -disloyat^when they, hold uimopul^-views^- -"vv v"; (> . ^^-Cui'J;^ .:';,• ■- :.< . :: --:; v" "."'■•. 






■iV'fi- 



47.-. 



.-.^ : . c . , . . j^thermorav^t survey^ ' 

> ^/y since even ;Comm^ 

'.■; ..•^-;,ihe.tJ!n0ed St^es^a^fpxia o^f \g ^fhat ;" 1 

• ^^ these protestations aa(y beV sincor^- 1^ ipdj^at^ 0^ : 

t ;« Conuntmiste who i^e^ief t\ the Pafty and kbjU^Cthe' faith because of oaj. siliuslph* f * 
^y ; . rnent* 11 It w^s cphclud^di that; ahy^siandairi >hich does not- consider the ^libe^ 

':'£f&: Z6f}ti>a-^^ uq>opuiar views and by pe^cefoi and } - 

:t- ^ \i*t r^^lawfal m^ans to convince others cajyiot- be applied as an ac$d test for loyalty 1 V 

fi : ;^V-*W the United States^ .,'■'■•. 'i v'.-^"-v/.-v.;>^:- ■:;.i,i^ i . -:,■••'.■ '; ' V04 ;■,;•■/■.;, w-"-: : ;^/ ^..,;v'-". ..• ,■.;■.,,•' • / -'\':^ ,.. 



Guilt by Associat ibh^^^QVe^^ Act s \ ' 



■....''-• : < — -— ' jj.^^-. -.. . r . .. , , ■„.. . .. , . .. _...»... 



o V^ -: • - -; According to; the r%b^ contended t&at persons should 

^'; ^: be d^ 
r ; t^- / ;referi^^ to as 
^SC''i ^ % ground for: a, fading ^of? gtiilt, ^ It ^w^s stetti* ithat ;-au^b standards of guilty j ^ 

■; c^ :^iapletely ^ % pbilcy pf gwer^^ 

'/" ;/ ■•;-■;^■^^V , '-■>.'" -;A * ;.- *. .'.■ -v "^^■■^i^Afcrd * { P#/ -^^®?f* : f s&P?'^ |t 7-wa.-e"';:-d|. eiiii. s^.(9d_ With the .statement that 1, v> 
KKV/ !-<^it _s^ot£Ld ; ,be ^j^lied- wi'thv ^ebtivity^' ^ : .',-V'.W--. -^ 









Vv- ...-VW'Ks-*.' 



•tt^istsisss 



^.- b 



''•'-■.;•/•; 



•<• :,. 












''•■'1- l> 


l . . > 


,.v : r 


•'-..•r- r ' 


•vf" 


.'■-./* '■ ' 


<, ". - 


-•>• •. 


;V,** •* 


• ! ^ 


■,.• 4 , 





.*.•>; 

:';'.*>' 



^.vviV-'V • Overthrow of *• the Go vernment ^jr^yioiettee^ ^-?' -? • . • '■■•''»* •'. ; 'V*V: . '■ [•'• - ; . 

; \: ;Coxamuni^ts:*> Jhe Schaeide was'; Stated; that \the : \V 

^, *^ :-' • ^ '• 

y .seeking to accpj^li perhaps 

' :/• ■■" V-'" be: deemed, to be^seekiiig: 'to overthrow the go^rament fey violence^ ft . - : ■ :■;.'■•; 

- was further seated that vthe Ife^st^ and Gomctunists would prolsaljly over- -ji ;'J 
throw the governinent by tioi^enbe If; t s 

' of success^ Bofwii^ in; vi^» of tl^ St^etae Coxjrt 1 s decision th^ y ? 

y^tandferd is too y^c&e for the usual caoe^ fhe tfoSmihist Party in most , ; - 
/ • «tate$ ie a legal political party. , She Civil Service Commission ruled 

ytl&t the\p^ which do -not na^e any p^rty^ ^ere ; ;. ;■ 

y.: _ . to be i^erpret^ rto:^ ' ";?'..-■■■■ 

fhe -<^ttris^iu8^..M0i rol^d oa tli&;t^i«^ioa:'ai: doubt existed! y •'/■ •>;'. 

whether the interpriatatioiie wcn&4 be Sustained, .-y ".;• j I 

Banger of ^Penetration hy Foreign (fovfrrnments _,y ; '.y ^ • ^ Hl 

A clearer 'gt'4adard 'ofj-pui^o^ey.: «i<fiPT^iBg to the surveyv should 'be 
; ; that the Be^rt^ent not ej^loy;- b^per^' acting directly or ihdireetly for y. 
\y y ;a- foreign gwernm^t. ; :|t wa^ ^i»b^c^^^^ ■'" y; 

■yy : "'j&©-. was overpo^erihgly Q^ and who .would f : \."' 

consider his loyalty to the iSep^txaent and the'. United States less than his 
'.'."./.•'"" sympathy for the other ^vernmentv V/ • ,-/'■■• \,:' \ •• i. *'*' 

.-• ; ^ ; x ■' V .^--CoM^is^ Soviet policy y makes "| 

- fanatic devotees and appeals W the more intelligent classes f romiwhoa the 

: '* -%-yy ,• — "v^-^the-' (toJamusist^P^.^ iagent^ of prbpag^di^ts within ;•. 

y^: yy/^yy V • ■■*•■'. the .$^Hmen^;-_-;5;; V ;■•*./ >^ ^£v!y A ..-, ' w '"■,• v/ ; s ; ^, ••'; i;'-- 'V '•". >*""; '•■••- " ■; .' ? ";' : /-^ : .; ; .• " "'.■. 1 .. ' 

; ■ ; .V, - ^ ^gent^ 'acting tinder im^^ 

;.;:;^^;a^ ^ ingenuity are 

; : -'--'\v^>;-' ;\-;"'\ ■■•"', av^iiahle^ the conclusion: d^^ r ^ the in- .-/, 

^ ^ ;;; J; . : ;' ; adequacy of theifep£^ttent*:^;eeGU^^ or legal > 

: 'V' r: -;.* : " > '" : .."^ : .^">" "^ .T'.-;- o^fttacicfe. to sutveillsrioe that account for our failure tdidi^cover, such > 

^^'■i ,s y. ; : " V . ;- r • -' : '"^ ;* ; ::agent : fi> to. 4iski^s theip^ : to /"hring^theai to triki^J. to cbni^,ic^^tl^^ t : : :whe^e/^..;: 
^V-C,A--'i '.^^'^.^criaea have fceen e^itte^ not ■;,dbfie^ the failure must he:3 : ',\^ ' 

'. v ;';\ U^C"- : '"'- y :i '- '-iscrilied in part . to lack of adequate information;- -\ ;>. ^i"'''': ..'.t.r ■:■ ^. ./'.*/ .'-•"' •*■•. 

}: > ; v' \ Sowever,^^e^ not dealt; with hut only persons 

• : ,i : -:'y-& ' t: ■ ^^i; lively to^e \xbq& m ^ucli; the s^ndard sha;ad v he one of "reasonable danger, . 
y : ^ -_V<a' ' ■ ''"■?.'■ \-Sfpr. we ; are dealing, herp; witit the. opinion; and: belief of a citiaen. '; ; ";- 



.;-t," -i 



;>.;;' : '»'?• ..•>_;.. '•'■'' lj\ .,'/..- ' ,•-.■' . •' '''«'*!• ,'" '•-.'.' ..*•'■■•«"'* '•">'"..:•• ;,'-''' •*• ft' «>' 



1 . - v ^v- 



: : m 









.♦/ •-•-. StaMar&e of Proof •/••-.•-•.".■" ^^y.l-l.-V.v-: ' / : \^' \:^:-: ■ -y<' 

■;^-: ;_^ ; •■•• V...;;- It?waa.poiiited but that, what is sufficient ^oof is determined by; • j£ _, 
! : iaany ^^c^p^S-'^^-ili'iab. frequently the fallyxreiQ coH^iy.w|tk.r\iies of ' j. 

'sufficiency of evidence is caused by adsdni strati ve necessity. St was* ''■?■■■..:, 

cone c$ed that the Ideological convictions of a person My Jb.e.- difficult to ; : ;, ," 
•prove e%eci^lly when there is a desire to conceal, thesu Itotheimore, the 
;:C^, investigators do not iht^yieW th$ applicant; end report' ; ^nl5&.mich i^ut|ne r • 
^ite&s &e> background ihf amotion, etcV Ihe reviewers, li&e tfes investigators* ; . 

base their det erisiiiation oft the strength of the inference froneejening .approval 
^^^diMpproval^fOT-eJaplo^ent:. ; _ .7". -.,';■ ; '. ; -. • -^ .7 • ;/' ■';■ t : '' ; r '. 

V : ;COH aid thev^ attempted, to ass^ein cases : V 

an inference of <foMnist Party mesibsrship,; or its equivalent, from facts >hioh 
are clearly subject in o^^lence to ^ egual ©^stronger inference of innocence* 

•^rue foreign agents would naturally avoid Opinion and hot associate with organ! * 
nations under fire and consequently penetrate the. Department as a res&lt of* 

: diversion created 1> j the amplication of this t est • >';;•■•■.•'■•' '•■'.'■■■•,'■ •> : \ ' 

.-.: If the hypothesis ^^ suggested by theajabi^ious evidence is one of actual 
agency, on behalf of a foreign gby&raisient , the hypothesis should be capable of 
proof if sufft^ The detection problem 1&' . 

dif ficulfr Mt not insOluble^V^;, A •. ' ?;'-.;'\-,.-. • -■■•■?'^'" :■•".•.•. ;: r-\ • A- •-.'■',' 



v The standard of proof isust be higher isfeere the individual is an 
employee than where he is merely an applicant * fhere may be additional 
consideration of .persoimei policy «&i;eh : call for ;$ greater investigative 
effort aM, coiap^fcence in certain typea of |appii^ants than otfters. '"\'k 

Administration CoHcentrati6n of Iff ott '^ 



m 



:-v.\-:-v: ^e-\i^e"/ia*^ low Salaried/. : y ; v V-V.;:V' 

individuals where iteas *>f ideology and ^affiliations M^ organizations 

w^e involved* in&any cases^^t^ 

rather than departmental security* 1!he lack of sufficient personnel* etc, can for 
a ^actieal distin^ between standards 

of ppoot/. It &ay be ^esiredi in order to achie^ a is^ssim epheeniratioh of effort 
^ ito^aj^ applicants in certain categori as ;^ 

jwhere the record contained unsolved issues bearing on security* Biis type of :ease 
would consist of hew appli cants for employment; in positions that could 1 easily 
be filled by other applic^ts H>f equal ability without .raising questions of public 
'.pbiicyi'' suchras.mb??^^ '*-■[ •'•.^.' '":•,.■• •'•''■■■■^•'■••■> M /- : -\/r> >■-•''.■' '■ 



,' '••» : 9 • ' m "'...;, v ' .- _ -- . * 



-*•< v~«i\ > '• 















:#B 






,v\> «f- 



-;•£ 



W->r<~ 



,'./'. i"-.. 



: "iv 



•>;-."..0''-' '',« 



,i .;,%■>; •<■ 



,' ' *- ■ ■ V. 



&'&^^ _ . . 

*V. :.V -\- ^^er^;^Bouia.-be sheeted to /the 'mbst^tborough' investigation aM'to hlgbtri : ' V 
£ ^^-Xf pi ?|> ; ^o. reduce; to : t^i^plo^mt 0f insipid,/ colorless individuate wltbotit X^X'- 

•>■;■? X/ z* * 6 * 1 ^^ 

^■Hpi':^ 1 ^^*'^^ ■** l^^^r^ip iiv fthfe 'Wa^bingtan B^k Shop, X" : / ; .^'X :': X : ' :XX^-'~; 






.-;■ .•: ,*■-=•'■.•■■•■>'■ 



.. , -,.,. , ■. : : • '•: ,.'■''• Associatloh Mth ;-;p%sona ; . •undet sua'picton miist hot be casual-friendship , 
;-vi^'vrv'W^:%:^\.9.^.^l.^!.^t^^^-- It^u^be.poncluded .that the tiro-:are; engaged^' 4 

; * -y f |n :■. the saae cone^iracyor share; the ^toelo^ltjr. IMs^ias true <tf Membership '•' I 
.: .;;...; -, in "front* organisations whioh -..are ^designed to attract' innocents; i. Innocents ; V : 
•- ■ -; .are not nhintelligent people bnt merely :of good faith. and ; goo<l will, aanipulated 

-. : , in suotle : ways- by professional' persons ^v;. To- say' ;tbat 'the IDspartaient • should not' ■ ••• 
.■.. '■;;-',••-;.?.■;. employ su6h;pefflons:'Taised::'ih^^ - ; '::.-'' K 



1 <' K . n* i' *&;>/• >' v ..'-.' 









'; v -u 






I"- 'V.; i v. 



": J: *«:.'. •>. 



:' ,>%■■,: 



;■'/ Z \"U" 



,; . f ( i 4 ^ .- . • 












]:\-- j '. XX^ 



^H 1 






-\s 



'«..".•: 






-.-' r.: 


















.'•? ■••'•.• 






-•• r VM 



• '-... ..Li.-' N .■* V- 



Future Importance of Standards of Proof 



** VvC*' '•* ': * ■*'■ • * r ' "~ % •'• '" 



' '/«*h)*«. \ 



•/.•• V£ -\>-> "It ; vae lt^leiteii;>k^t co#1&^edv&ite%^ the; Seg^ta^t^^'i.^; 

would be Bade ;hy ;p$r^ : to *^ei*t* •orsanieaiions'^id' vfote'^ : & 

special iavest^titms/aust^ ?&e se«ni*ity of fibers ot the ^ "" 

l^artaeht bus t bear ln : aind the distikction v betw^ett f or eign agents ^and 
aere * joiners* and foraulate a planned \prj&g*aa\ef\ investigation to deal ;: 
with this profclea. - \ f he 7wraat\a^ are calculated ; 

to deal otiiyi^th routine r inve^ti^tire service of the '> 



^\ Relations to Ffli ^kd Other Agencies 1 J ' c 

I c !; ^ i*nre*tt^ \ 5^ 

• ^ ,/ attests to peaetrete ^ agents of foreign intellif euwse ; ■; 

h C: organisations in the j^partaent* ■ $he $SJ^ such % 

^t ; v.^eata:;^ 

: • ;V^ vneeds as * t&eir purposed ^It is; iaki^^ted to • cope with s thia problem this Department 
•: V?".', aastvutiiiae- other agenitee aifN^j^ was 

■-•;• >-.'io. knb^ the ta^ I 

y.i\ ;;■ operating in this country, so that ih^ ei^lpyeer wh$ would he used by such > • 1 <l / 
'j^4('% governments -c^l&^b^ree^ -^ : ':H:^/'; ;/ -: : '-": ; . .>'-'>. ; ■ l, '"' : "! -•":-. '•^' : :f- ; l/f • 



>A J '... . !> .- 



1 ■ •- 4. 






<\~V- 



and the Separ taeht wganiiedr ^reeao^ioiary . seeuri t^fcefcsOT^ 

of- the aiatter s, which c6uld only h^^r iially ef f ectlTe^ 5he llai#ed investigative 

facilities aus t be cohG^ntratM ^6 ataii anproduetiye inree taen t ot pereonnel "•> j ' 

and timei .-'.aaft: conaerre-- the ^^ropriatibna* ; ■■.•;.• •'■. v;'\:: •:-•.- ;.;! ."•■' :,:'* v>\: V-. : --'- . •:.*•;:* f^|,.- :V-;' 



their agenta auat be^ e^e^ 

r ttaed:!by Me; l^ar^^ has; a^pribduced!; «uch^e^dehce» ' • }.. 

Mbrebver^: each . eapi|oy6e ^isaitf«ed ^^^at^ probable agent must- become ' ;|; 
ib$ subject of ah iatehaiye ee^trity ^hwatigktion to justify the atsMeeal. >f 

V ; ; i v She XM acta f or the • J>^f^^(^.^ j%toy oiiaccoao^tlon; ^d it fcaan&fr 
afford td be aetieuious : la ita;f ork ;i^ /^ es f ; v 

etc. : ^rthermore, tb^:l$i ^st^ pWdrltiy on inTeatigatloaa and 

transmitted only such infox^atloh^ IB! ^ffileialiV^.voai^ 

be properly kn&wa tc;the department. > •..;■ '^: /?y' ; ' l/ \ ■■■^■'^-^■ r :. ]■.,/.< ''^'- f -.. 



?t^ 



^' "0" 



/ » • V t 

















■'^.";" ^^^v:^^.;-;:' vfr'-v^v:;^' v : .^--i''; &£v-vc".;i,;-'%rK^^ . V:J-vV. ^ v -- %: ^-i-l : '^t---''v fA -^ C- '■■ 



,. _ ,.:.;,■:■,,. .; r ,.^.-.. V -i^.; r 



■v;'<v. 






* :".' 



#^.': : -V-Al 



••:^-:':;;.j , '^^;.;^, : ;^-' , .:-..j : 



^ 



^ -.,♦, 



VV.' j , 



..'• #• 






<■ \£ ';' 









«■■ 


* * 


.*$ 


„••• 






'.' ' 




; .'. 


: K 




V ', 


...<. ,'.' "» 


.< 


' '» -V 


.'../ 


"> 


'•■'. ;_ 


A". 


; r V; 


***'* 


>'-: '■;"• 


•/ 


* - V 


t r'.\ 


";<i i 


/"' 


'.'"* 


Vr: 


-■i 1 


' • ■ * ^ _ 


■ ,' 


'*"■".. V 




•":' 


'v. 


■ K ?' 


; V ; % 


^ > ** 


^ ; ^' 


; 'i ? 


.'- ; ;" 


•v< 


V • 


'""X. 




V»— 




'' ,; V - ; * 


.'. 




U 




*''L' 


i\ 


$■. 


■.!, 


'•<'V".!-' 


i?». 




















'*' : '* 4 . 


."'--'■ 


'• X : 


: C 


\.' 




' T .' 


."'•'" .•'- 




; * - ■ • 










:U ; - 


K" 




c 


■ : £_ 


'.'«£' 




- V '.V 


K ,'r 


' *";*: 


♦£ 


'^ ;■'•;•"'> 


•p 


''/*■•■* 






5,' \ 


% 


t)"'* 


°7 V 






'. ; \ 


/-• 


Xi. 


■*',- 


^T : ? 


'••" v 


•"'T 


'.''•■<• 














$J. t 








•^ -'"' 


,..<; • 










V* v 'v 


* 
















•v> : Fini- 



-.,&•.>. 



; -A vf Mr ^ >i tfe ^asie studies* fhe 



>f perlbi fceleeted was ^ 

-closed hy CSiU therefore ^'^^^"^^^^i^citedi invthi* -section ^wnverdi^/^ 
fe ^i^pli^aiits , : £ dr ejwai^le, ' la; ok^ v ck«^^ format, e&iipt^eit^^ra^i^-.^tw Approved . y 
V;V ©nVthe >aaia f ; of general charaict Si?, « tidy i#i tko^at axiy i»Te« ttgatioa >f the : ; ; ^ • 
~v applieaat^s IniQided^ ^f ^tSie intOTiaai polices and iBanageaeht of iaeraaia. ; ^^ 

:-v->y4^-^^ ^-,, ■■ ; .- : ;; ' • ;' ' ', /"' ' ^ ',\ /- ; . . - ' -.i 'j.v.. '■• : ^:^- ! ' ' ^ : 

>vi:;'"'>';"v '•' ^ : : In VMOtfeier caie W^c^ii^tvetf -ft- traasf ereie of CIAA, •tha^S^jat • ■■■ 

H;fi?$i. T'ep9T%i&:. : 1^& m^^Tipt^ a gi^^ known aa tile v •; > v;'" / 

i.^:-Sac^^f^a©tti ; '-81AV. ; *ut. then r^^teid ti^ bo 
;^o attend: & mee ting and there -'Va^ ; ^ 

- : < iao ^fii^th^ inl^ : ^:' y :{^. ■■• <>. v ; . t '., -1 .•v : ;,V :. :% •-.. :..'. . >' ...: V"- " V- ^; 

i v : ^.V ■ vv-S':; 'i^Heantf ; ' yere #ie^|^^ /• ; ;: 'V ^ 

.»: heavy. f rlafcingr And^cretloa|.'. ^4 v b^^^^ :i tM^'.-r './'; V V "V * ">• :4,/ . . *^" ; - >; - "( "" ?.-. h i- 






, *■ 









. V - - . f .' 



Ifee applicant in^etlg^ti^^f ; Itfa .* alla^k ;wa« di$cusse4 in the 
* ts^V^ and tlie soturcesM ' •■■ ' 

;- ; ; aiid •.^"if'fort was; v iade^ the liW6^igat^% t<> ^ ©f < ;; 

; aliegiatipne jsg*lnst jlailackJ; JPcf^ti^tt^ieSj' -*Kedrs : ^appi^ated in the Willack report 
' a stataaent that Ida ^i^ Party* -■'".■■ 

/She 13 a signer of the 19U6 Gei^^ la Fhiladelphia, *;. ••'; 

i ##ne^aid«u^^-ite : -« ^-.'/^ 

;V \.' : ^^'^-^ -itootlger •eae^ v diec^aed : Wi^hati^ Cl^liteh,. Whose feaeo '.;■■•.■' 

^vae tesed on the fact that ^\$^ refeorde ; ; t 

; : ^i'g^lpsed- t^t x ,t^ eufeverfdve'-. . 
files of -.;■*' ^^twimehi 'igen#y--^^|k''ni^^: : oi theie haveJ ieen preainentiy ; ; 

: 1" identified with Coinnmiet f ronC ^ criticism of 

tfea charao toil Nation of so»e ^f ; the ref vae indicated i^at 

had been "obiistd^ tHe/ch^act^l«aU 



1^^ ^pit^a ^op to __ _ . ( t 

•;; ;? • : ';. -vl '^v' v?Rae: next cae ^Fdi ecus se^ : va*L^ tha t ">f .Boro thjr Chekey ;^o pdwi n , who. * iiad; 
written a «M*j*aiffltfr^ v ■ 

character %y the Siyil Service eomiaslon in 19^ in ' "'/J 

the Cooperative Bsokshoii in Washington and her assoeia tion wi th H an aileged - 
©oiiamniat 11 * irtiich were in her ihvsistiiative fil^. 4t is statedyin the report 
tfait the %0nc#ualon that ehe was a meiher of a Cbnmtuii s t f^roift* ; organl xation i ^ 
^ppBWBi to relate entirel3r : tb'her 1 ^ »e«h^rs^ip in ^ttoV^>j^ls^V/r 1 

;that. .the disapproval was ;t appeal^ f-[ ■}? ^ -.: yjx ■^ r ' : ' 



• .1 > 



1 &, jv* "..^v ''.i.'*;'.v. 



.1^-: 



[ 






I .■•-■^■v--' \. .v.* --.- ^.;%-;A'-" --■■MS- -'•.- 





















ii 


,-/^-r 


:.■;*&[' 


■■^''■■:.:''--.'-i. i ;v* 


r f^', ^i^^r^-l > : - ;: I:w; ; i ^d :■ " ^^-^'^^ : ^SBi 




?:^- ^-..^ ; ^^^rs^ : .' 


II 


k: 


* ;;* 


:' t * ' ' • ■' * ' "'. *■>-' 


' y;-' ■:' J ''U'>:-;r5-:3r-^vC^'^X-^ *f>.^' ^K.V-'-.. 


^; ( v- ; jf" 


/;'!zjy*yz^ <^77i7:: ;'■■ iyf";. 


* -^ ! 


■ \>;.' 




V'..'''. / Y'~* '. ;.« iV .'■■ 






■A-^^v'.* .-r*£ v..v&* - ■:■' v -i.-!^.« - V;-.->;v>; ' '.; ^v'^-K' ? . 7-.- :7^7^'" "7^7^,^ 



7;7£- ^*7cfe ^7 17 74v^7 



.*: OCv< 






i-?- 



'.■ tr- -N 



sM&da^ia, , W $&<&*: : ^03pt wt$k$J^ ■. ^'^raplin^t .eases- ^lioulii be iii^oisred; ■ ;/; : : ^ : f ,> :S " : ;' , c 



; .4t ■■■V;;fie2it - : ^ouM fee i^ed^ of i^^cticm ca ^rid^aq^ of f oreigri; A 



,^:^; ; -^ ; ; ;^^ : |^^^ 'ttoe^Stat^>/ ; ^y'W 

7 : " : t. ;: A7:wb&' &&tt!$£^ %& lifche-;!^ 

v, ; ; .> ; :;; «ll^hoiai .^i^fciUt^;% -4, q^Mjsmg facto? m the ti£&& ptMe^ , 






..,_"'■ v ;„ ..-V^/* ^ 



kT ^ : ' ■ 'V^. ^ i- 7,-. " '■?'■ ■ '■A '**& ....";:■ 






- V^^W^f!^ the ^fe^titri^life^'v 

ij]\ f - -\:; i'V'i <■>'-., ^ *■■''■ - : '-i '■'"' '"' ■''-"'■■. /*'-'"/■ '"'■"-■ ■"■' V f '■', ■'■ r '\?*-!* $*'^.'''\ : '''^\-^ 
.-" v -'^ : -v r'V'-^ f'^tV^'rw^ •'*;*>£' v: '. -£iy>: — '■ ' ~-^ ■■*::// /v*v*V ^^^^v^'V^r.'!^ - \'- : ^a!^— ^V^*.*"' r >i"v-.^'? 



f 



a , STANDARD FORM NO. 64 



t— *; 



wc 



♦ 



Office NLemorandufn • united states government 



Mr. JLouis Nichols, Assistant Director 

Federal Bureau of Investigation 
The Attorney General 



DATE: June 29, 1950 





I think it more accurate to answer Senator McCarthy 
in the manner I have indicated by amendment to your draft. £ 
I want to call your attention to the fact that nowhere in Mr; 
Ford's letter did he indicate even by inference that the FBI 
had made an examination of these records* 



t-U 4J 



v 






isnt »*er& : »« 










h 



$5 






Honorable Joseph R* McCarthy 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. ' ( 



My dear Senator: 



I have received your letter dated June 27, 
1950, inquiring whether this Bureau has examined the 
81 loyalty files which the members of the Tydings 
Committee have been scrutinizing and whether such 
an examination by the FBI has disclosed that the 
files are complete and that nothing has been removed 
therefrom. 

For your information, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation furnished Mr. Ford, at his request, a 
record of all loyalty material ^furnished the State 
Department, in the 81 cases referred to. For your 
further information, I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Ford's 
letter to Senator Tydings which I have secured from the 
Attorney General. 

Sincerely yours,' 



HNCLOSURE 

\ ■ • 



I^u'Sa 






% 



'•*-v/.r '* 



■lis"'"-'' 



W: 



JUhe ; 16 r 1950 



;?■■.;•.■';'■'•. ¥&&ing%QTiy^ 'CUV ■'^.\ v f :""'- "j. ; : ";' - ! ?* ";■"' ;."-'" '\ *; -^Z v.' .. * '■ v ; ";'. 'V; ■'•\ .'■■.'' : ''. !: V ' : 'V :/ ■'-";.'/• •'£ "^A^ 
■'.', fry ^dear Senator: v >'. H ■."«*■ . / 

:/^?;^%/:^^ -refer to ,■ yioftr l^t*er oJT ^. Jfoy ;:S r ; IS50, tottA iv <: ::; 'i 
: jW/reg^r^ 

H y ;ty >tiue t.6 the *b-c<fll$d "81 [individual through : ^ 

>f :; ,^ • : humbefs\by S^ehatpr iMoQokt}iy:inW the Senate •"•> '■.:*??:. 

''?;'. \:': f loor -on February 20yi9SO,a^ name : in ttte : '%■. 

V- V £^:!**0P ° ena^ : oX*the _ _ £&/igtf tf^^ ; •• ' •* ^ ;; / ';•'., * : - ;. ■' 0; •• •.:' " , ; : /;'^ ■ 

■,"v'.. ; ■'•>; . >£tate department files: ^re. being made;^ :'■.'■:''■ ^,-- 

'i- -;■''. „-> Sub ^Committee :- •'.: '••;• ..'•--'" ■• : ' ;•••'■• . :"* -"-'l ; r- - ':/';'-,>• . ■'■• < • • : ' •■ "• '•• ;; : '- >• ,• •'•• ' /' * < ~' : '* : 



i V ^- c. 



V : \V ; ^ V/JWw^ : - V !*'•:• 

VS \;';VPe^ril;.'^i^a ''.'';' •"•'• ^ >• ; .■ -*•" ;.-v,- .;•: 

.". ;.:v .'SJay Robi n&b : K-.;') ..'.£,• /^.U^.. ;/"-■ -v 

•x .■'•■'■ , .Frq;nd6s iltyrle Tu^hsbher- 
^f}:^y : Ma^ci:a Ruth .<Sar r'i son .-■' v ■...-'■>• 
•^ -: y :JStanl&y.<$rage>. i ; '^ : ,'V ••.,'. V A'? v-- : - 
;-\ r : I)ai>id ■^^ar^sij'Lloyd^^"^^ ; -- '.'*';, 
;-> .' ^ ; ; ^rJ^r^^^'^^iii^en^ Pes her A; : h \ /'■ 
;> : ';; :./ Mabel • i^a^cea ^erry •*' ".■".*;■ '■ ; 

■ "'/,;; v .- : .;. 'Ca^l^on. WolseyW^shburtie^ 
■>.\'\> -'J'&'i tKe odor e:\Arhdt ■:.'•• V 
;;; / \R bbe^f ^ali) o ti Millevi II £ 

? V ; Jeanne B; JTiaylor J /•,,;:;• : ; -" ^ 
':^ u ^^.^dy^hje\'jJ. ■%emoh'y''.r ''-■"." 
' -> ;;v ^'$ahsS : Herman : Land s bet g: ^ : 

■ : : ; v* 4 : ';;>'Sefai'd;.(?ra^e>? : V;,;:-'':- S %':-A ■',■ .: 
..".-. > v : - ->^^c^ep/if.!.r^o:B-©j|)AaV> n^ *'./•■■'■;*■•" 
: T^i • •• • Louis ficyss: (Lewis Ross) * 






*2'* 



■''■"•'.^.A -'■• 



•lf# 


ag*-;; 


v-"'*: ,-,- v ;. >v . ; :. 


.'-'/*" .■" 1 fcj2.\ 


•''•r'^SV'-y^ 


■v;-!- .-. 


;'.- yf> "'.:; V-.-J 


^ ; '^&. 






■■?;.••■•■/»■;«■■ 

' ^: S qb'Snfaii as a 1 -'- • *;#. ,;• ; •;;•..' .- v* . • :X- . : -■■ ' [. v '; •"> 
f; :s; -Herwtin'; Siege 1 ; •,.;>•, >-.^:^^.; 1 ^^"?'.> 
*':.- v:j?22 a i/6 rr i s Montague ^y. .'v.. j£f \.i :'-?.■ ■ ■ r 

• .■; Melvin Shell ^MelvilX^ 

* •-. Frederic : ^fiXi^fe Spiiihy. ." : ' '-"v^ -,V : V v 
.'.';;• Olga Vladimerp&n6rtch: r -• ; 

.^:/i^*fti'u^^^l2t^>l? Kaufman ••:/,* ' r \ \ ;.C^ •'■; 
:'« ; > Jfax • 4|>r i o-ftam'. Fol i n ■;' '. ;' *</ -o ■ Z \ \ ;--. :i ; ; . v ; • 
/ -EsitelXe; Gord&nffisiella / 1 

Van$el Franks ;M > 

V \ Gottfried -Thomas Mann > : •■■-;.;-;. 
£ . Sam Fishbaqk ' , i . > • .. ,. : - / • ? .• •; '_ : / .;}"". ' . <v;. 
: i 'William Draper ■'■ Car terl '},!:■ ' : ; : '*/" : * : - %'.:. 
Norman rfteoifo : >\;.\- : & 

r iWilliak Treadwell .Sthhe^::/^\y/^ 

^^r^.r Esthet 
■:: ■ Robert Warren Barney "i ^■-'■y7* %■■•■'{. 
.'i Patricia Gl&ver^BarnZtt • / ••; ; 

v Sylvia 5c 7iimj&e2;/C- '^J-'w^^'.^-^.i 
■:..- Rowena Sheldon Bellows Rommel •? ; .. ■' 
;'.'", Philip Raine "■'/•'•■Vj/*v-'-v •'.': .••'.*' - <,'•; -''V 
' Richard. H owe 11 Post , V : .'.'; -,,- \ ":; ';._. 

• y ^2; £o£i h Lorwi h * v.- v . ' y /,. . : '^'-.:T/ ; - : : 
- Gertrude , .-&rimw&q4v:CcL^(Sr6iiy.. y : v " 

; u i?flftt2'^i'exa;n<Jer Lifjahtieff-Lee 
'„•;' Fred garner .'Neal ,''•-■.. y\. v.- "V :--'".-'< : 
'•y-'-Xp:ijEr^G r -ar2is2.e-;:: • '.^yV/'V*. :■ y y'/'y y-?; 
.ft. •; Cora- 42 1 ce i JDub aid; ' ■ ''< -' :'-* . ";.: ' '" t "\' V •. :: :' > J 
;■;.■ »*.;ji2 ice, ifar gar e* ■ Defter jidh-: . ; : . > 
rlsham /William Perkins >v; '■■■:■ : :(vV,-:- :: '.'- 
■^^;^t^'li2^■■'.**'2c■oaf : •- ^^ • -V," '.'• '^, .-••'•;>;.;.; 
y Hollis ' William Peter: V\' .-. '•• V-; .%• ,r:'y 
.;•, Fff>tor: Myron Hunt ^ \ ; V ■ ; ^ v v,-;y .^' : ..- : / 
David Randolph i H \; : . •; 

>' «ro7»n ^ic/iard Ltndsey -'"'.'?■: y: \ ! : w - 
'/■• .4.a>grt;;Jap"*/"-ffrp.a« ;'y- .'^v'.v ;: 'vv>-":' : '".;-; 
'"/*•' Syljjjtti C lement ina Magxii t e : ^ : ;'; •; 
^y^^rbid'yfierma^'';;- V;.-- ; ,•"'. '-'; ;- : . ..."■.; ^ ; v?. v 
■•-•, St pin Dirititdr Stoiahoff ; : • ^ ^ 
'' : ;£eonard\^oru)i?T-;;^V; .-.;' v .;'; .■V'^'':;" .'■".^.'■sl; 
\: Joseph Thaddeus Jankow&ki);^:i 

Preston Keesling 'Lewis ; ::/ ' ^ • 
: Joseph to Forno ':.■• •'• >' ^_ '^' . . \/ ■ '';•.',;:•.": ': " : f : 
', Andrew Martin jramarckS:^ .-v ..;-■; 

Theophylactoa Achilles Polysoides 



5'"- 



••■■%. 






^'^•:.V' ; . --'•'•,:I^^-P^_- : . :; ■•• i -^- 



^- .■•y 






•'-v 



i*V H 












>"#>. 






'■: i Peyton Fot£ 
deputy Attorney General 



■ ft -:- 


■ '■ '". /- ' 


■»•-'•■.'■' 


'.'" 


K V • 








• •? • • 


.'._",' 














*.'- '•• 


•'■ ;!'".• . . 


• - ' 




& 


.,' '' • ' *',>. » 


' -.v- '.''..' 






'• v '!."» .* 


i . i . • 


. ' ' . s 


.,••_!>, 


'>;Vv.J ••' 




••■ : 


/&, 


'< V- - ' ■ . V 


; • ' ;' •„• 


'./< 


r; 


i ,V ' " . -' • 4 - 


' V* . ' " -' 




• {>'* ' 








* 


l' f< r '"f' % ►" ' 


•■'•'* ';'•'■*' .'", 


•'>'.'.: 




"' - ; '. ' ■'■" 


•::': .'• .*' ' * 


V ''.''' '■' 


*;. - if « 




■ cyp 


^3 




. i.*'' 1 • • ' * ' 


''*..*' •• ' 


\-» "•»•' 


'"'it 


'/•' '>'. ,.-;..' 


'; : :.-' ; \.y''- 


\. ; -7 


; . -..I .. 


"."'" -.'•". 


' '-''".''., 






*£lj&> '• 


' ■ -'^'V 




• "* »*'-' ' 


%f<: ? : ; 


'. 




.;•;• u.- 


.' ' ' i • '• ' 






v '» t 


." J. < .■'■ ' \ * 


' ; -' . *' ' ' 




•;^ J( '- 


: ' : . ' \ 




'••^ 


•'■ "-* ^ i - 


'•'.'-■- ■!. "• , : 


'':■■' 


j. * ■■ 


■* f<r 


:•/"'•. ■•*' V 




• ';~ 


■'■"■ t '-; *'-'•' 


,-.'»-"• '•••♦' V >* 


, r \. :: . . < 


* 


*'*'' ''V 


..v -'■Hi. •„-. 


.-.'•.,.' •• >_.;■.'• ■ 


'■• : ': 


>'-''H 


" /* ./ " '" 


>. .'"•.: • v.' 




:. : L- : # 




'.'.' •... ;'; • 


£ -. ' 


;>;;-^'- : 


- f ' \-. : v -'*.' 


. '..'.-".), 


»;. ■ -'j- 



1 ' 



v&l 






•■»•> - •;;.,^. 



• il •:*.' 









■ ^ ■■< .££ffiy,X 


::-'-.^:''' ;.;.••::'■. \.. •;.■ 




:v^v^:.';;..*..*---^.;:'":'--' : -: 






[^}:^^ : W^\^, : 


P5S-*^ 


,;V /'• ..'"'X— ' ' >-•■" ''.'•' : " .' , ••' 


^^^v^>; : ' , :'. / -./ i 


''^' y '-^%y'':'y 


'*': •''. ' <.'-">•' •'.'•'♦■ -.'"• '• : 


'**-' v , r\-"i' •• ^'- " 


,-'- "^ ' ' .''''• : ' 


^\xi'S:'$ff 


'''•'•..' / ■' i;^ 1 " ' r ./''' 






1 ':&. ■ 






'I ' K'' 



■i ;-!^//.- 



STANDARD t-OFOA NO. 64 



Office Memor 



Wndum • 



# 



TO 



FROM 



SUBJECT: 



VN\~ 



MR. TOLSON\ 
L. B. NICHOLS 



UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 

date: June 29, 1950 



d 



called. 



LMr^r^tMu^ ^^ SpL A^M^l 



While I was out to lunch,, the Attor 
I returned the call immediately 



He 




~c stated that Miss Fanebust had tol 
letter to Senator McCarthy and he wondered if 
he had to personally pass upon. I told him ob 
would want to do him the courtesy of letting h 
in view of the public interest and the public 
McCarthy. 



ey . General 
upon returning. 

i 
him 




Motor _ 
_ Pennington 
Mr. Qulrm 
Tel©. Room 
lir. Mease 



Miss Holmes i_ 

His 3 Geutidy__i_ 



we had a 
that was something 
viously Mr. Hoover 
im see such a letter 
statements of 



IHe then 
send the letter?" 
exactly what I am 



stated: 

Then, in 
trying to 



M 



Do I have to say it is all right to 
a joking manner, he said: "That is 
avoid. " 






I told him if he interposed no objection to the letter, 
j^t would be satisfactory to us as our letter was a direct answer 
to McCarthy, it was innocuous, nbn-commital, and only went as far as 
absolutely necessary. 

He then asked if it was our understanding that Ford wrote 
a letter to Tydings stating the FBI had examined State Departmentr\ 
files. I told him all we knew about this was what we read in the!) 
paper. ^J(^ 



#e then 
the thing we were 
controversy;: with 



referred again to the letter and asked if this was 
in a controversy with Ford on. I told him the 
Ford had to do with John Stewart Service. 



He said obviously the Bureau had to answer McCarthy and 
had to give a factual answer to McCarthy and wondered if he should 
call Ford and ask Ford for a copy of the letter Ford sent to Tydings 
I told him this, of course, was a matter for him. 

He stated that he personally didn't want to get in any 
controversy. I told him we weren't trying to involve him in any 
controverr&y j and wouldn't do that, that we merely brought the letter 
around to him as a matter of courtesy and so he could interpose an^ 
0bJ.«* tm if He „,t nt . .-.., r | yj^jj)^ 

etter \Fo#$J{w7fOibe -and he 



He stated he would call 



would clear the letter this afternoon 
LBNtFML 



&p$i 



iSRUULgifll 













l "' 


'• •. . *""'■'• . .•: • j" '; " .'•■ 


';"". • •• • 








• '«w -*• « ■ 












.':','-•',; 


:, .<< ■;,, _ r 


■:■- .'-'<" : .w-v... " 










- - '' -r. • ' '•'' *■. • '• «•. ',.'. ' ''• /"'•:' 


•>v 'I^^By 




• " ■> ■ i- ' — • ,..- _-* * ( 


■ ■ * I^^^^B " 


'■..-■• 1-'- 


"* -•'--. ••■'.; isfr" •.-,'»• •-•■I'tiV.' 


^"^•-mm?* 




'- . ,* ,. ' * " ','• ■ ,V ' -'* " ***'■':. '? 




;•,••■/:.■> 


••>*•'*• •'"' '"" ' ••• -s.J*'-^ ' k 




' • ' *'*«••' ' ■ 


/vH-V " * "I? ,/ ■'**"-* 


• ''■■■■ ■}' v, ,-V *,. ' *" V* "* 








. ■'. v, • . 


,: '•.'.'.-" '-. '■•' **.?• ..'..' ' ' 


l' ' '„ ■ ■ ' •«•■*'♦ . ■ \ 




' V ?' ■■■ '■■.•■■;'" t ■ 


v.-^; rtV ^^f-v ; .V^^ 



:^a^;'i^;;|i95<?-: 



- •. N»J 




iMnTYPn . 51: ' Honor dbl '£■■ \Ioa eph B TKUcCar-thy^ 
, " l ** cu '-•: .United Statee'Senafe , ? : 



Washington,:. D. •£*.£• 



•'*v, '■* .^ v*'-> >; •• • ,V >'\s 



>' i\-:^-. 



'./.'■ 



;:-#{/' dear Seriatqr: 



* j> - 



.V- *'...• 






■• v; ' ; . X Tiioue [\receiv:ettfybur]'lefo 27,' 1950: 

inquiring whether Ship >^ 

file 8 Which the/ members -of the Tydi ngs Commi ttee/hkve 
been : scrutinising a^ examination by ' ; % • 

the FBI kite disclosed ihai^ttie : files [are complete and S ■ 
f hat nothing has been ; 

: ^v 2V*e F^ Aas : nia.de no -K\ 

such;; examination Jind ^H^efore ts not tn a posit jtan.-to ;.^ 
mafre: an^/J statement cxmoern i ng ; the completeness or djn- P : Js 

completeness of /the State pep lortne^t ^il'pa/ ■ « ■.>■:••■•■■ vF ^ ' ^ 






)« iM«»<^ 



. '• J: 



«— -' • rrt ■ 

CD • 



For your information, :the Federal Bureau of : 
, ^ ^ ;; ;^ Jnueeti gation furnished \"lfi%;' ^d.rdj;^.a*- ;hi-a/";r.eflFues*^ qp3 ^c^ ^ 

-; .. :- !> r ^-'Vv v ' ? " :: • 1: --'--f^^ <3i -^ a oft dip Zoyate khe'State^£rp \^% 

;;_a^ j '^Department tn the -81 cape^}ref erred pOi r For your : flj ^ ~ 
v ^^^-^r;^ further ^i^orwati'oh^I amrdnclosirig* V copy of : Mri'Fo$df% 



(tHr^*^ "''leitt'iBr -to^SenatofTyding&i which t I- have secured from^pjie^ 



"•TO- 



'i--' 


' 


i 


^ 


i - ; 


b 


f.-- 


1 -'' 


, • 




- ^ : ."? ; .'f. 



Sincerely yours, b^ ; £? . 



Toleon 

La4d_ 
. Clegg^ 

Olavln 
' Nichols 1 
' Rosen 

Tracy^ 
'. Harbb 

Mo'hr 



who[ exh Vbi ted; it to ihe'Ai to^We y^: ' . 
Generdl ♦ i/ry ifi Ipu 53 later^ 're-turned , 

,/md sai&y "This, is finer^jus/t:as' 'i'*> o : T jfef^v 
u.ndgrdtp.0.d.-- f*i /r :•*.'■;;•'■•..*.■>■'■.;■! :V r : 
-■ - • *••• ■"•••'.:•-. DMt ■ ":.■■- 



^•v^ : 





OFF** OF THE DIRECTOR 

7r 




i 



tyvbzml i&mmu Of Jfnwstigation 

.tttttted States 9?parittt£tti of ihtstia* 

ffllas^tngf ott 25, 59* &* 

!.'.. - " Jiine\S8y : 1950 ";■* 




ffo n a 7^2 6 2 e . Jo s ep ft R.\McC ar t hy 
Unit edSgiat e s 'Senate '■.' v '.'\; 
Washi'nvvb'n* '.&• .£• ' . V'' : '" 



Jfcfy. dear^;iSena^br; . , ' - v _-* ;■.,:■■ y^ ■';".;.'■■'■-■■■"■ : - : v ;: '.' - .■■•"' \ ' : 

J ftck;e received your letter dated June 27, 
1950,\iriquirincfcwh'e-t has examined the 

e 8i loyalty fid e^whiah the 'Members 'of -the Tydings 
Committee have'- bekn< scrutinising and mket her 'such .- 
an examination '.by \fte ^51 h'as : di'scl osed that the 
files are complete ^&j}d r , , that no thing has been -removed 
therefrom* : . ',/ : -.: 

\. ■ '" £er3!p^^^ jbhe Federal. Bureau of*'" 

Investigation has made nV such examination, and therefore 

\is not in a position- to make any statement concerning . < 

the completeness. or'"\tnc : p'7np\et--eh-e/S'S : - of :'the State Depart 

ment files. .>"'.- 




Sinter ely .yours s - 












. r'r':'''".; .'.C-..'v> 



■*> •' ; - f ' v ^-". .; ;-•','■ i : 



;;>*/ United ^t<0e£' Seriate; - "■;- A< "V (•^.•' 



AAfeAAy?-; 









■ ^:My\dedr _ _ 

r#c<t * tted 0ur /letter" datM^Jurie '27, -CX? *' 
■-Slloyalrty^ of the Tydings • / 




Investigate no ,^uc^ and Hheref-ore^;^^;'^: 

is not in ;a>po&ittofiit statement c oncerhi ng v . J ^ -'A 

tfte completeness ^ the ]. State:; Depart- A- \- V.-^ 



mentfiles^'- 



'it 






^ £-**•.. 






Toiso n . 

CJegg : '■•• : ' ..-"" . 
QXavln f *' * 






..:..rf\, I',.;" 




•*$■'■:■ , ■'*.'-. 



■*;•* 



-^V 



- ''lii-WC 



Nlctiole " '.j- 



v v, ^. ■-•■•' •--- -••;- ■*.-.> ^■.'•.•'.■•:';.i' ,; ..«-:.v-t-«-»(v V^-* •-' 1 - '• •••••♦•'. V V 

■^■■^■-■ V V ■■'■'■> r.r-^ ^--A. ■-■■■ 










- -.rS** 



4^-' 






-i> 









3.,' 



■.■"•;.ov;...'xci^^v»- 



Tracyj; 
Harboj: 
Mohr 



". ,••• - '^." .' 


• «. y .* / 


♦ .*- • 


Air-'r'r 


. v.? 




V.v- ■■■'./*?-> 


'c • c',. 


• -.£ 









•^** 









Tele .,;Rooia '-•>'- '- / : -/ 
Nease" - • j 


'z 1 ■;...■ : V' : 


1 1 1 ' ■'■■:'". v ';-.• '"; 


L^\ 


• >_.-.••• •' • , 








■ANOARD FORM NO. 64 



Office- Memorandum • 



4 



UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 



TO 



. S FROM 



THE DIRECTOR 
D,'M* Ladd 




DATE: July 14, 1950 



subject: REVIEW OF STATE DEPARTMENT FILES 
IN CONNECTION WITS ALLEGATIONS BT 
SENATOR JOSEPH RpMcCARTHT 




Tele. Room 



called and stated that the Attorney 
he write a letter to Senator Tydings***** 
reporting the results of a check we^y~ 



Mr. Peyton Ford 
General had directed that 
based upon our memorandum 

made on State Department files; that the Attorney General, 
course* wanted to help Tydings as much as possible and had ou 
lined how the letter should be prepared; namely, limiting it 
that material which we had furnished to the State Department^: f 
that Olive Palmer was with him and he wanted us to look aiP^pB& 
letter. I told him that we had our memorandum and any lettivf 
wanted to write was up to them* He stated he had a form he w 
to show to us and accordingly, Mr. Palmer brought the letter u$ '■*/?.&? 
which was reviewed by Messrs. Laughlin, Johnson, Ladd and Nichols.^ 




i^t v^v,) " 



The letter was brief, and points out that the Attorney 
General has requested the FBI to make an investigation to determine 
if the State Department files were complete; that the FBI had made 
such an investigation; that the files were complete except in three^ 
instances. The letter also referred to Peyton Ford*s letter to the] 
inventory of material we had furnished the Department and to Ford's] 
report that the files were complete* The three exceptions were as I 
followsz I 



* 



(fl 



£ 



li u.Ayb I-* 



LBNsDMLzdad 



The exception noted that the file was complete 
except that no record appeared therein of data 
furnished orally on January 17, 1946, and 
October 24, 1946* 

Case 51 - ROWENlfa&MMEL 

The file was complete except summary data furnished 
May 13, 1947, was not in the file although, the 
substance of the summary data was set forth in 
State Department, investigative repots, y j / r 2 



I 1 



( P / 



ative reports. />j / , *j 

, RECORDED -122 /<*/"} 

Came 16 - ROBERT TALBOThtlLLER. Ill w f 

" ~ ', INDEXED -1W <M fc 

There was a question mark on the letter betwk&J} oases 
14 and 51 and Palmer advised that th&y had missed Case 
16, which they would put in wh&UhtTiv* letter was 
retyped. This refers to Robert Talbot Miller, III. 
The file was complete except that there was no record 




J^' -^ 






$5* 



W 






* v 






^J? 



\ w 






'•/* 



-'■'0 



ur 'If ■ 



;>,/ s 



I 1 - 



■> . * 



# 




o/ information furnished orally on July 8, 1944. 

_,# 

Objection was made to Mr* Palmer as to the correctness 
of t%e reference n FBI Investigation"* 

It was pointed out that had an investigation been made, 
it would have been necessary to check each report in the Bureau's 
files against the State Department, page by page, paragraph by 
paragraph* This couldn't be called an investigation* He stated 
he would change this to "examination"* 

We told him that the matter df the letter was up to 
him and we would defer it to them* 

The letter is factually accurate* It confines itself 
to those memoranda and reports furnished to the State Department 
and disregards those sent to other agencies which were not of 
course in the State Department 9 s files* 



;w 




# 



f^V 



<^Uittdt^t^ttuxm^(Bmtxvii 



July 12, 1950 



yi 



6 




MEMORANDUM FOR MR. J. EDGAR HOOVER, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU 
OF INVESTIGATION 



In view of Senator McCarthy 1 s public charge in a 
letter which he sent to President Truman that the State 
Department personnel files in. the so-called 81 cases vhich 
were reviewed by the Tydings Committee were deliberately 
stripped of derogatory data in 1946, I request that the 
Bureau immediately cause an examination of these 81 files, 
to be made and report to me whether or not it finds any 
material furnished by the Bureau to be missing therefrom, . 
and whether the Department is in possession of any.infor-> 
mation indicating that State Department personnel files were 
deliberately stripped of derogatory data at any time* 

I would appreciate being advised by Friday, 
July U, 1950. 




J« Howard McGrath 
Attorney General 




M-A&1*' 



~„,M. *»*.. 




RECORDED -72 \±*\ 

k B 7 ^ 




(/j/ 




, ) 



-Wmmm*- 



«\ 



<S 



VI 



**QSQTz m 




j^kisiQTDm 



\H~ 



w~ m 



',.TT*.*^'r .is 



; S> 




• 



-zMm-: 



:.'-VsL : IPi'S)-OJ'~ 



ik«wWy FBI 



■JWy;J3, 1950 







/ SBSfcTOR JOSEPH KvAsCA-RTH* ■_: ■• O, M 

Sa aceordartce with the request oantained in yaur :w®orand*m of Jfcly 12, 
1^0 > r#pr«^fit*t±7W of thie Bureau, i# th# presence of Mr. CUva Pilaer erf the 
DepartMHit, and Iteears . ttomtd L. I^fcola&m tod Joeaph Jtaahagr of the Department 
of St&i% today at the lftite "Bouse reviewed State BftpaHoent flies on peraona . 
^ain*& wfaoa allegations ; : ; have bean m<&$ by • Senior $»aeph JL IcGarthy* . 

P&r:your i»f0ra»tifmj ^^ tt^^a aty Hies of the W t^ty-^opi asm tioned by 
Senator McCarthy wa^e actually aw&lable for aaawinatioa. Mr* Micbolson of the 
State Department explained "that Saaator McCarthys Case Ho. 72 had never been : 
/ . identified by him and that i$n of the ^wrttini^; 00 oiw&e filaa were not tade avail- 
able by the ?r«aident to the iaeatoera #f tha fy&ngs Subcowltt** far esaealnation* 
According to Kr. Ifteholaon, these ten saees was* ftet *oong the^ 1QS cases originally 
ejeaminad bj invastigatora of the SuHofiBStttee of tha Booee Appellations Oaaadttea 
in collection Vrlth ilia State Dapartiaeiit iKpr^priatioii Bill fear- 19491 amd President 
ISrusaan only raade available to xtanhers of the typings 3ubco*Bfiitte© those cases which 
included in the 108 cases previously eocsKdLned* Mr*' XLcholeon identif lad 
ia above~?»ntioned tan oaaaa as; Jfelson Chipch±n> Lcrcrell Meleher Glueas, Ka^io 
'eroasdea Del^a^ Fftillp Caryl Jessup, 1^ 

fiitey*T& and . 

^illiaai Walter Rasdngton. :/'■', :. 

Bureau repraa^^xl^tiv^ ^#.M ; ^bMli of their review of the , - * 
seventy files the ijpfor»ation coktad.ned in w& wmismto^ to 

Peyton yord, which reflected a ttamry of the aatearial furnished by this 
tu te th* Staii^ D^partjaent^ Ciyil Berr*ica Cajamisaien, and the Loyalty Reriew. 
Board. In thlrteeiri ©aata mterial fecaijamltted by the Bureau- 'to the I^alty Rerieir ; 
'tti*T&'*to&'1&eCt*W in recent »ontha aaa not in the files/ 

fhm State Bepertatot rep«refientatiTe« e^?lained that th^lr filea on thes# individuals 
nnrit iapp^i<i»d hy tl» Praaldent ^aro^sd February 20, 1950** Iter a ti»e after that 
r iJ date., acooording to the State 0e|5ar^nt i^pree«mtativea^ theee fllea #ere in the 
I Ppoaa^aaicm ' #£ the liya^ty Rwiea Bae^d and afeile awe of tfce material addressed 
|nP %pr the Loyalty Review Board ttmm the %tr«au and reeeivad atibaequent te Pebraary 
/w f 1950> haul been filed, all of it haa net been* 







WK& 



there were six* lmtancet mmg these aeventy caaes in i*tix?h the Bureau 
bducted loyalty inreetigations oh tte individuals iijsrolved -«feo at one tiiae were 
Degrataeht «^ployaea but at the tine of the inveatigatlan were eaployed in 
r Gtovernmental agency* Jn ttieae oasea, e^pjtea* o£ the Bureau *%. loyalty 
ere not in the State Pc^arfea^ filea* * •' . »^: t . 



itate 



>th< 



^SOTTta 



[titter 



—f-' Ili:MRJ;3nmb;mer 



8ENTFM01 

Z!1ME~J-L 






Mb? 




;■$ 






fc,-.v-v..v,...i 



3& five of the seventy eaees^ according to the B&reau f s regorde* 
Special Irujairy type investigations were eondiaeted by' the Btureaa for the 
Office of Coordinator of jMormation, predeeewor organisation to the Office 
of War laf ermatioa. Thtee employee* i^paranily *sre tra^ferred to the State 
Department althoi^gh copies of the 8iarea&*e report* reflecting thaee inveatigatione 
are vo% in the State leparfasant file** 

Our ea^inati^fi ef tfaeee file* «sa* United* ef course* to checkisg the 
material provided by thie Bureau simse ** have no taotfladge of *hat ether iftfesv 
»&tiea ehoaLd be contained in theee file** 

Attached for your imfoxmatioa is a case by oaae analysis of the ' 

seventy files exa&ined^ ^ 

Hith regard to your iuqutry as to whether the Bureau is in possession 
ef asy information i&dicatifig that the State Bepartsaeat personnel files iwre 
deliberately stripped of derogatory data at any %%m, the oaly inf arssatioa 
available to thi* B^reati concerning this is that refl ected in the atetegeiat b6 

dated Jfoly 11 # 195% furnished to Senator McCarthy by I \ f b 7c 

I I in the State Departaeat and no* a Special Lgmit of the IBI, A 

photostatic eopy of this statement is appended for joist information. 



Knsloeiare 













■m 






,-f 


















:|^i|jpi;M|| X ••;/ 



: *xi' 



v\. 







i^m^^m^^i-i vy 



ks,m^[i$[,: :r ;;y; >xyc^- 

^y : £MM&Mt ' 



•■ ; te 

,'i 






M 





Mm? --hr-' 



%m^- v|\ ■ ^ 



lp#\< ■■■■-■■' 












T^-^"— 



,„ . . . . _^<ttv&^?&i?v& 






&™ 






1 ,..: 



§M4i 






^^•••'Ij 






W 



Vs. 




ifi 



^cfc|j{^ - viteW; V: . ■ ; :-..-.r..r^.;'; . &/ 






">.'•'.! 



V/A 






\'&: 






•(■.■ 



^&®i r , t oti©*$; t > '•; -\ ■■■' : .; 



•/.'vr**.; 


I* 1 '■'/' "■' 


•.■/'-*'• 'r*^. 




! = -■ ■" 

■/ -j' 'I* ■ 






'»!'■ % a * ' " 


''"' V:''" 




.': '/* te ' 


- ,J ,', " ""•>'*' 


;■ *$ ti 


•"*'.■■ 




<^r v - : ''i ; K 


r '.V '*■ '' 


:/"'■<* *** '- 




iMWS?' ■'-*''.?> 




■•■ *.* 






£*«*}.<< -O&ftfafc'. fe^* #" |£ »' : ■? * ; 






-** '•'$•*'■/**■■■, 



• : ^4^y-u>ffry 







^W& 
















?/' r *<=>> ■ 






■Si: 



^^ : -^^^^:,; y iS^i£#:' ; / '.:■ ' 






-^r^j? ^>v- ; ^:% vk-K?1$VK t- 




-.*."'' -:',-*«;' ^. r ■, 



■i-J"--' "■" ', • . ■' ''h*\ ■'"■■ v '■''.-- "■-.'■■' '• -■-- >-*„."••■;■ ' '^■■i*. r -r-i:. .: '• ',' 






.■:>^"s 



I- ■; 

I*: 




\ff?':-y'f 


: ::Jtf 


§\*: 


>}'%. 




fit:' 




I ik '&• ■ 






sS^^w-K^g;^ ■■■■■ -,;• 



w 




i. mm-- 
















^.<''v'v'"i .vvv?~. j ■:"-■<• -'J- 




ip$«* $i*«^^ 



$jk&#3&&6' 



ia. 



.■.-,..|-y 






~Vi - iW 



■'■-'^ )l-V^-><^^ :: . r. 



r& 









'■i '- 









:. .v-^ -,v ^:>. 









^V 









'\>\>-ys *: v. 



.-'-; " *-■ . .* 






. ^ ■ ,f ■ „ ' . • - ■ 



'.'v 3 






'r , ■ . •■.*. 



■*jft^- 



-xV 









;f.;.v v ^;-;x';^.^^^^: •,:;^ 



? *.- ■ 







^-j'lum-..-- 



.vi'VJ 






-Vqardform 



J 



^ Office Mefnomnduwi • united stSes government 



4 



TO 
FROM 



The Director 



DATE: July 11, 1950 




D. M. Ladd 

^SUBJECT: SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE FOREIGN 
J „JJ RELATIONS COMMITTEE 




LOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ^^f$& \d&* ** I, b 



PURPOSE 






>? 




/To submit for your information the results of a^eview of the 
proposed/Ssgport of _ the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee concerning information- appearing therein which directly relates 
to the FBI or FBI personnel, and to also highlight comments of the Subcoi 

BACKGROUND 

At k: 50 PM on July 10, 1950, a ccpy of the proposed report of the /■' / ^ 
Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was made available |/H ^^"7 . / 
to the Bureau on a highly confidential basis, it being stipulated that jjffi /V ' M 
copies should be made nor any notations made thereon. V "' \.-'| f ? jv 




ttee.~ : 



A 



\ 




This proposed report and the attached appendices (consisting of *- 
337 pages in all), have been reviewed for information which directly relates 
to the FBI or FBI personnel, special emphasis * having been placed on such 
information as reflects adversely on the Bureau. In this connection, however, J 
it is noted that page sixty-two of the proposed report, as submitted to the 
Bureau, was missing and therefore could not be reviewed. 

11 In making this review , no attem pt has been made to compare the 

* conclusions set forth in the^ropos^^e gcgtjHl th^ ^ the_fg^s_sg^ cgitained 




V 



±r\ fiuye&H fffrles r and other than those which directly concern the Bureau 
^S^&iiS^Et-^^^gg^^^^^to^esteblish th e accu racy or^ ^igaccurac xjs Lj ftate - 
ments a ppeariniTtherei^ ^"" 



7 



Generally, throughout the proposed report, references made to the 
FBI or FBI personnel are commendatory. The findings and conclusions of the 
Subcommittee are generally favorable to the individuals charged by Senator 
McCarthy,^ and no recommendations for dismissal are made. 




&i 



dPfj* 



4nd 



/' 



The attached memorandum is submitted 






Attachment 



tftf 



m v . t EMG;EFF ADDENDUM - July 11, 1% 
*i" Mlf 1 7 i960 7our / ai:tenti ° n is parti 



ijtor your information 




f '.>? 




• • % 



n't"" 




§ 



v^J- 



i 



■*.K- 9 






attp&rted memorandum wherein M is set forth a statement 
h reference to McCarthy' s charge about the stripping 
of the State Department' s files indicating that "the files 
were reviewed by Agents of the FBI and the Department of 
Justice ....". This, of course, is incorrect. 






On page* 16 of the attached memorandum, it 
that the Department of Justice has advised 
rtment of State that Mr. Hoover never made 
puoiicised statement that it was a one hundred 
airtight case against the Amerasia' defendants, 
of course is an incorrect statement and while 



is pointed 
the 

the widely 
per cent 
This 
the Depart- 



ment has been 
Committee has 



advised 
not. 



of the inaccuracy of this, the 



On page~*26 of this memorandum, it is noted that the 
letter from the Director to the State Department with 
reference to the chart prepared by Sam Klaus was set 
forth in full. 

\ With reference to the Amerasia Case on page 30 of 

the attached memorandum, it is set forth that representatives 
of the Criminal Division conferred with FBI officials on 
the morning of September 28, 1945, and it was generally 
agreed that the case was in serious jeopardy. A number 
of suggestions were made and discarded. This leaves the 
erroneous impression that the Bureau might have concurred 
in the Department r s handling of the prosecution. , 

It is pointed out that the full testimony of the 
Bureau's representatives is not set forth in the report. 
Excerpts from the testimony are mentioned in the footnotes. 



It is noted that the question, which was 7B in the 
testimony, was changed. This question is quoted and reads 
"Was evidence sought and obtained by entering the apartment 
and premises of the accused without legal process and with- 
out the knowledge 
was then quoted. 



of the accused." Mr. Nichols 7 answer 



The next question is worded "Were these entries 
of t he premises before arrests made by the Agents without 
legal process and without the knowledge , of the subjects.'' 
The words "surreptitiously" and "stealthily" are not used. 







• 



July 11, 1950 



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY 
INVESTIGATION 



REPORT 
of a 
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGJ RELATIONS 

Pursuant to 

S. Res. 231 

A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE TOETHER THERE 

ARE EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

DISLOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES 



/5-/-ai^ W 






• 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

page number 

Introduction ...... ♦ . • . 1,2 

Conception of the Subcommittee's Duty # 2 

Initial Phase of the Inquiry . ........... 3 

The Story of the "81 Cases". . . ... 3,4 

Review of Loyalty Files . . ". 5,6,7 

Problem Confronting the State Department 1945-1946 8 

Handling of the Loyalty Program . . . 8,9 

The Cases of the Individuals Publicly Charged 9 

Mrs. Esther Caukin Brunauer •••-•••• .10 

Gustavo Duran • . • » . . 10,11 

Haldore Hanson * . . • 12 

Philip C. Jessup 12,13 

Dorothy Kenyon 13 

Owen Lattimore . . . . . 14-21 

Frederick L. Schuman 22 

John Stewart Service / . 22-24 

Harlow Shapley 24,25 

John Carter Vincent 25, 

Charges With Respect To "FBI Chart" 25,26 

Amerasia Case ♦. 27-36 

The Sources of the Charges 37 

The Facts Behind the Charge of "Whitewash" ..... 38,39 

General Observations . ••....... 39-41 



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY 
"" INVESTIGATION ' 



REPORT 
of a 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS . f ^ 1HP 0BMA^IOH CONTAINED 



Pursuant to 
S. Res* .-231 



HHOBHISUWJIASSinHD 
BCBW'WSlBSSBWni' 



A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE 

ARE EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT 

DISLOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES 



Subcommittee on Senate Resolution 231 



MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland, Chairman / 
THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN, Rhode Island BOURKE B« HICHENLOOFER,- Iowa 
BRIEN McMAHON, Connecticut HENRY CABOT LCQGE, Jr., Massachusetts 

Edward P. Morgan, Chief Counsel 

Robert L. Heald, Assistant Counsel 

William J. KLina, Assistant Counsel 

Robert Morris, Assistant Counsel 

Iyon L« Tyler, Assistant Counsel 

INTRODUCTION 

Under the introduction of this report, it is pointed out that on 
February 22, 19^0, the Senate adopted Resolution 231, authorizing and direct- 
ing the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any subcommittee thereof, 
to conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether persons 
who are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed "by the Depart- 
ment of State* The Committee was directed to report to the Senate at earliest 
practicable date results of investigation and recommendations* If recommenda- 
tions included formal charges of disloyalty, the Committee, before making 
recommendation was directed to give the individual open hearings for purpose 
of taking evidence or testimony. In the conduct of this study and investigation, 
the Resolution directed the Committee to procure by subpoena and examine complete 



loyalty and employment files and records of employees of State Department 
and such other agencies against whom charges have been heard. 

Pursuant to Res. 231, a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, comprised of Senators Tydings (Chairman), Greeny McMahon, 
tELckenlooper and Lodge, was appointed to conduct the investigation* Beginning 
-with public hearings on March 8, 195>0, public or executive hearings were held 
on 31 subsequent days, ending on July 7, 19^0, during the course of -which 35 
•witnesses appeared. Additionally, a special subcommittee consisting of 
Senators Green and Lodge interrogated a total of 3U witnesses both in the 
United States and abroad. 

The report called attention to the circumstances behind the Resolu- 
tion, referring to Senator McCarthy's speech on February 9, 1950, at Tflheeling, 
West Virginia, when he allegedly stated that although he could not take the 
time to name all the men in the State Department who had been named as active 
members of the Communist .Party and members of a spy ring, he had in his hand a 
list of 205 names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being 
members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless were still working and 
shaping policy in the State Department? further, that in an interview over a 
radio station at Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 10, 1950, McCarthy said,, 
"Last night I discussed the Communists in the State Department. I stated I 
had the names of 57 card carrying members of the Communist Party. 11 Considerable 
attention is directed to the fact that the number and characterization of 
Communists in the State Department had dropped over night from 205 *named as 
active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring w to. n 57 card 
carrying members of the Communist Party. fl The report relates that since 
Senator Mc c arthy had left the unmistakable inference he had recently obtained 
from unrevealed sources in the State Department the information he was present- 
ing, despite the inconsistencies apparent from the outset, an immediate and 
thorough investigation was necessary. Accordingly, Senate Resolution 231 
introduced by Senator Scott W. Lucas was adopted. s 

CONCEPTION OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S DUTY 
~ ! (Pages k - 5) T. " 

It is pointed out that Res. 231 was the result of McCarthy 1 s charges 
and the inquiry contemplated utilisation of and development of information 
which McCarthy had assured he had recently obtained; that the- Committee had 
not conceived its function to be that of superceding the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation in its investigations of the loyalty of Federal employees or 
of the House Committee on un-American Activities. 



INITIAL PHASE OF THE INQUIRY 
j[Pages 5"^>) ' ' - 

According to the report, the first -witness to appear before the 
subcommittee was Senator McCarthy who, according to the report, had no 
evidence whatever to submit concerning the individuals discussed hy him 
previously but insisted the evidence to support the charges would be found 
in the loyalty files maintained in the Executive Branch of the Government • 
The report points out this was both interesting and significant since it 
was well known that under the Presidents Directive of March 13* 19lj8, the 
release of information developed concerning employees incident to the 
Loyalty Program was prohibited. The report stated from the very outset 
the subcommittee was subjected by Senator McCarthy and certain segments of 
the press and radio to. a campaign of villification probably unparalleled ; 
in the history of Congressional investigations; that the unwarranted cry 
"whitewash 1 * was raised even before the hearing started and equally unfair 
and malicious allegations were made throughout the proceedings* 

THE STORY OF THE "81 CASES* 
(Pages 6-9) 

This section of the report refers to the investigation of 108 
loyalty files of the State Department conducted in 19t7 hy investigators 
for a subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations in connection 
with the State Departments Appropriation Bill for 19U8» It points out that 
a case by case analysis by the Tydings Subcommittee of the 81 Cases referred 
to by Senator McCarthy on February 20, 1950, revealed that all 81 cases were 
included in the "108 list"; that language employed by Senator McCarthy in 
his "81 Cases" is similar . textually to the language used in the counterpart 
cases appearing in the "108 list"; that where variations in the case descrip- 
tions used by Senator McCarthy occur, the language had been changed by Senator 
McCarthy to create a more sinister impression and where he changed the facts 
in the case descriptions he had changed them to create worse impressions* The 
report further points out that a review of the 108 memoranda prepared by the 
House investigators in 19U7 shows that they were limited to derogatory informa- 
tion appearing in the files without reference to information tending to disprove 
allegations and did not appear to be concerned with the merits of the cases 
but dealt merely with the basis for or inadequacy of the investigations • 

The report comments that Senator Mc c arthy*s speech before the Senate 
on February 20, 1950, constituted a perversion compounded of the State Depart- 
ment's loyalty files in terms of the situation that prevailed not in 19 50 but 
back.in 19U7 and that Senator McCarthy had received no under-cover information 
from "loyal 11 or "disturbed" State Department employees as he led the Senate 
to believe but his information was beyond all reasonable doubt a "dressed up" 
version of material developed by the 80th Congress. 

3 



The Tydings Committee report Tarings out that it was confronted 
•with the annoying spectacle of four different committees of the 80th 
Congress, which was controlled by Senator McCarthy's own Party, having 
considered the very same files and information which provided the predicate 
for the McCarthy charges, with none of these committees so much as regard- 
ing the situation as one meriting a report for citing a single State Department 
employee as disloyal. The four committees of the 80th Congress referred to 
are specified as being the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 
80th Congress which originally considered the list of "108 cases," a sub- 
committee of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive. Departments 
which held hearings in March, 191*8, regarding handling of loyalty cases by 
the State Department, a "Committee of One n (Representative Bartel J« Jonkman, 
Republican, Michigan) who made a probe into. State Department security and 
reported thereon to the House on August 2, 19l*8, and a subcommittee of the 
Senate Appropriations Committee, 80th Congress which, being cognisant of 
the memoranda of the "108 Cases" had examined Secretary of State George C« 
Marshall regarding the State, Department's loyalty program. 

Mention is made of the fact that Ifcv John E# Peurifoy of the State 
Department, in testifying regarding the "108 Cases'* before the subcommittee 
of the House Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments, 80th 
Coigress, pointed out that only 5>7 of the 108 individuals were then employed 
in the State Department • From this the Tydings Subcommittee states that it 
is clear Senator McCarthy's reference to n J?7 card-carrying members of the 
Communist Party" was actually a reference ; to the 57 State Department employees 
mentioned by Mr. Peurifoy* 



REVIEW OF LQTALTY FILES 
(Pages 9 to 12) 

In this section of the report, mention is made of the review 
of the files concerning the individuals charged by Senator McCarthy in 
his speech before the Senate on February 20, 1950* made by members of the 
ladings Subcommittee at the White House. It is pointed out that In 
reviewing the files the Committee members recognized that they sat In 
judgment on the work of the FBI, the State Department Security Staff, the 
State Department Loyalty and Security Board and in some instances the 
President's Loyalty Review Board, representatives of which agencies had 
previously appeared before the Committee and impressed the Committee with 
their background, character, integrity, and manifest patriotism; that to assume 
any one of these representatives would have been a part to or have countenanced 
in any way harboring in the State Department of persons disloyal to the 
United States would not only have been absurd but unwarranted. However, the * 
Committee was also mindful of the charge implicit in Senator McCarthy's 
allegations that an individual or individuals responsible for ferreting 
out disloyal employees, deliberately or otherwise, failed to perform his 
or their official duties. The Committee also realized that the officials 
responsible for making a determination of an employee's loyalty were in a 
much more favorable position to make such a determination and the function 
of the Committee was properly that of passing judgment on an administrative 
finding not unlike the function of an appellate court* A third consideration 
of the Committee in reviewing these files was the standards and criteria laid 
down under the Loyalty Program* 

The following quoted comments of the Committee as they appear in 
its report illustrate the general findings of the Committee as a result of 
its review of the files in question and also illustrate comments of interest 
made hj the Committee and pertinent references to the FBI* 

"V/ith the foregoing considerations in mind, we have carefully 
and conscientiously reviewed each and every one of the 
loyalty files relative to the individuals charged by 
Senator McCarthy. In no instance was any one of them now 
employed in the State Department found to be a 'card carrying 
Communist, * a member of the Communist Party or 'loyal to the 
Communist Party* f Furthermore, in no instance have we found 



"in our considered judgment that the decision to grant 
loyalty or/and security clearance has been erroneously or 
improperly made in the light of existing loyalty standards." 



"What we have found have been meticulous and comprehensive 
investigations conducted by the FBI. These investigations- 
have been exhaustive and provide, in so far as humanly 
possible, a thorough going exploration of every avenue 
through iflhich an employee's background and loyalty may be 
pursued and determined. The files reflect a similar 
thoroughness on the part of the State Department's Security 
Staff. "Where loyalty hearings have been involved, the 
proceedings have been pertinent and comprehensive in 
contemplation of the issues involved. 11 



"We are fully satisfied, therefore, on the basis of our 
study of the loyalty files, that the State Department has 
not knowingly retained, in its employ, individuals #io have 
been disloyal." 



"What the State Department knows concerning an employee's 
loyalty is to be. found in its loyalty and security files. 
These files contain all information bearing on loyalty, 
obtained from any and all sources, including, of course, the 
reports of full field investigation by the FBI. Interestingly, 
in this regard, no sooner had the President indicated that 
the files would be available for review by the Subcommittee 
than Senator McCarthy charged they were being 'raped,' altered, 
or otherwise subjected to a 'housecleaning.' This charge was 
found to be utterly without foundation in fact. The files 
were reviewed by Agents of the FBI and the Department of Justice 
has testified that all information bearing on the employee's loyalty , 
as developed by the FBI, appears in the files which were reviewecf 
by the Subcommittee. " (The underlining has. been added to high- 
light this particular comment as it appears in the Tydings 
Report, since the comment implies that Bureau Agents actually- 
reviewed the files of the State Department on the individuals 
involved for the purpose of ascertaining whether they were 
complete. We, of course, did not review the State Department 



6 



files for this purpose but did make a review of the Bureau 1 s 
files for the purpose of furnishing to the Attorney General 
a brief specifying Bureau correspondence "whereby information 
concerning these individuals had been furnished to the State 
Department and the Civil Service Commission. This brief was 
requested by Mr. Peyton Ford to assist the Attorney General 
in preparing a letter addressed to the Tydings Subcommittee, 
concerning the cases named on a "Subpoena list 11 received by 
the Justice Department fi'om the Tydings Subcommittee* It is 
interesting to note that the Tydings report footnotes the 
comment underlined above by referring to a letter from the 
Department of Justice dated June 16, 195&, "printed in the 
record*") 

"The most amazing thing in connection -with our review of the 
loyalty files made available to us by the President is the 
fact that Senator Hickenlooper read only 9 of the files and 
Senator Lodge 12 # Despite, therefore, the clamor and demand 
that was raised by Senator McCarthy, along with his associates, . 
and the assertion that the loyalty files would f prove his case, 1 
we find the most unbelievable situation of the members of 
Senator McCarthys own Party on our Subcommittee taking the 
trouble to read only a very small percentage of the files made 
available for these examinations by the President*" 



"Our review of the files reveals to us the value and necessity 
of the Loyalty Program...* We fully endorse the Program, and 
feel that the necessity for perennial vigilance to prevent the 
penetration of our Government by those who would subvert and 
destroy it is of paramount importance...* The. job is one to be 
performed in a quiet, sober, intelligent manner by those trained 
and competent for the task* We believe that in the FEE our 
Government has the finest investigative organization in the 
world under one of the most eminent and capable career public 
servants in this or. any other generation, Mr* J* Edgar Hoover * 
^hey possess the ability in a quiet and unobtrusive manner to 
gather the facts concerning the loyalty of Federal employees 
and to keep abreast of and forestall the constant efforts of 
our enemies to place their minions in the" Government service. 
Of this we are fully satisfied* Additionally, we have found, 
as heretofore suggested, no instance where officials in the State 
Department, charged with responsibility for taking action on the 
basis of disloyalty, have failed to do so where the facts as 
developed by the FBI have revealed evidence of a type and character 
warranting a finding of disloyalty or security risk under the 
standards which have been laid down for their guidance* 11 



PROBLEM CONFRONTING THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN 1945 - 1946 
; (Pages IS - 18} 

This section of the report refers to the fact that in order 
to appreciate the problem of security in the State Department and 
the true source of the charges that have been made, it is necessary 
to consider the situation with which the State Department was con- 
fronted in late 1945 and early 1946 following the end of hostilities. 
Briefly, it is pointed out that various emergency agencies were 
established during the war which employed some individuals whose 
connection in a Communist sense would bar them from employment today; 
that there was a shortage of civilian personnel during the war and it 
was impossible to conduct adequate investigation of a great number of 
employees; that the Soviet Union was our ally during the war but at the 
end of hostilities it became apparent the Soviet Union did not contemplate 
co-operation and friendly relations with democratic countries and that 
employees having Communist complexions who were tolerated where necessity 
required during the war had to be removed from Federal Service* It 
is pointed out that by various executive orders in late 1945 and early 
1946, 12,797 employees of emergency war agencies (OSS, OWI, FE&) were 
transferred to the State Department and a screening committee established, 
by the State Department to cull out the "rotten apples ♦" The report quotes 
a statement on this entire, problem submitted by the State Department 
showing the action taken with respect thereto* The Tydings Subcommittee 
comments that it is fully satisfied the State Department handled the 
inordinate personnel problem incident to the transfer of over 12,000 
employees of other 1 agencies in a capable manner and that* every effort 
had "been made to weed out disloyal employees* 



HANDLING OF THE IflY&LTY PROGRAM 
(Pages 18 - 25) 



This section of the report is a discussion of the organization, 
personnel and procedures of the State Department, the Loyalty Security 
Board of the State Department, and the Presidents Loyalty Review 
r-Board*, The procedures for handling of applicants and- incumbents under 
the Loyalty Program and the summary dismissal power of the State 
Department provided by the McCarran Rider are discussed together with the 
standards applicable to each of these authorities. It is the conclusion 
of the Tydings Subcommittee that the Loyalty and Security Program of the 
State Department is being administered efficiently, fairly, and in the 
best interests of the government* The Subcommittee comments that in one 
respect the handling of applicants may be improved in that an applicant 



8 



is actually sworn in as an employee prior to a preliminary check 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation* If this check reveals 
disloyal information the State Department must then resort to the 
full procedure under the loyalty Program, whereas if made prior to 
employment and derogatory data is developed the State Department could 
then deny the application outright* A comment is also made by the 
Subcommittee that it feels the Loyalty Program in its entirety warrants 
study to determine whether it is deficient in that it recognizes only 
the disloyal standard* 

PROBLEM OF STATE DEPARTMENT SECURITY 
^Page 25) " 

This section of the report merely refers to a study made by 
Senators Green and Lodge, regarding the State Department's peculiar 
problem of security in view of the global disposition of its 
employee's activities and installations • 

THE CASES OF THE INDIVIDUALS PUBLICLY CHARGH) 
(Pages 25 - 95J 

This section of the report is devoted to a discussion of 
individuals charged publicly by Senator McCarthy which will be dealt 
with individually hereafter* In addition, mention is made of the "Three 
Big Communists" mentioned by Senator McCarthy on February 20, 1950, as 
being cases No # . 1 (Herbert Abner Fierst), No* 2 (John Carter Vincent), 
and No* 81 (Ruby Parson)* The Committee points out it has reviewed the 
loyalty files on these three cases and found nothing to sustain Senator 
McCarthy's assertion they are "big Communists,* 1 or of "tremendous 
importance and of great value to Russia," or are a part of an "espionage 
ring in the State Department." It is pointed out that the individual involved 
in case No* 81 (Ruby Parson) resigned from the State Department on 
April 2, 1948 • . 

Reference is also made to case No* 53 (Richard Howell Post) 
described by Senator McCarthy as one of the most dangerous Communists in 
the State Department and case No* 57 (Fred Warner Neal) concerning whom 
Senator McCarthy urged immediate action. The Committee points out that 
No* 53 resigned from the State Department on December 30, 1948, and 
No* 57 resigned March 12, 1948* The Committee thereafter cites the 
above as illustrative of the reckless and irresponsible treatment of the 
facts by Senator McCarthy* 

Set forth hereafter are the individual cases described in the 
Subcommittee report i 

9 



MRS. ESTHER CADKIN ERUNAPER 
(P&ges 26~29) 

The Subcommittee found that Mrs* Brunauer was a member of one 
organization cited as a Communist front "and that in 1934- and 1936, over H 
years ago, she participated in two meetings sponsored by a pro-Soviet organic 
zation of which she was not a member*" The conclusion was reached that there 
is no evidence that Mrs# Brunauer is disloyal, a Communist sympathizer or a 
security risk* 

GUSTAVO DIIRAN 
(Page 30) 

Senator McCarthy charged that Duran was well known for his rabid 
Communist beliefs and activities and was active in secret Soviet operations 
in the Spanish Republican Army* The Committee did not discuss Duran in the 
body of its report because of the fact that his employment with the State 
Department ceased before the Loyalty Program was instituted* 

The charges against Duran and his replies were set forth in Appendix 9: 

APPEIPIX 9 
CASE OF GDSTAVO DURftlt 
(Pages 182-187) 

Duran submitted a "Memorandum to Senator Tydings," dated March 30, 
1950, setting forth his answers to Senator McCarthy f s charges* Referring to the 
Spanish newspaper ARIBBA, which he claims was the indirect source of some of the 
Senator f s allegations, he notes that it erroneously reported that he came to 
Madrid "for the first time in the 1920 *s from the Canary Islands*" Duran notes 
he was born in Barcelona, Spain, and resided continuously with his family in 
Madrid from 1910 until 1929* Duran writes t 

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has in its files a list 
of the various domiciles of n$r f amily* This information which 
was provided by me, can be easily checked*" 

The foregoing is substantially correct* When interviewed by Mr* Ladd 

on April 29 > 1946, he furnished biographical data concerning his parents and 

himself, and set forth their domiciles as well as those of his own which he could 
recall* 

His attorneys, Baldwin, Todd & Lefferts, also forwarded the Director, 
tinder date of April 17, 1950, a complete biographical sketch* 



in 



With reference to Senator McCarthy's charges that Indalecio Erie to, 
former Minister of Defense for the Spanish Republican Cabinet, in his pamphlet, 
"Why and How I Left the Ministry, 11 described Dtiran as an agent of the Secret 
Russian Police or a member of the Comintern, Duran writes: 

"Subsequently, Mrv Prieto stated to Messrs* Robert Wilson 
Wall, Jr* and Robert Godfrey, Attaches to the American Embassy 
at Mexico City, that he had appointed me as head of the Madrid 
Zone of the Military Intelligence Service (SIM) at the 
proposal of General Miaja, then Commander of the Army of 
Madrid; he then reiterated that he (ft?ieto), like others in 
the Government -who were equally hostile to Communism, had been 
subjected to Communist pressures* 1 * 

Actually, Prieto said considerably more than Duran noted* When 
interviewed by Special Agents Wall and Godfrey, he stated that he did not know 
him prior to the appointment but that because Miaja, who was himself closely associ- 
ated.! with the Communist Party and Soviet interests in Spain, had recommended 
him, he assumed that Duran was a Communist* Prieto said he had no proof of 
this nor of any allegation that Duran was or had been an agent of the Soviet 
Union* He believed Duran had been subjected to considerable Communist pressure, 
as were all members of the Spanish Government* 



11 



(Pages 30 - 37) 

Hanson is the individual whom Senator McCarthy described as having 
a mission to communize the world# Louis Budenz testified he knew Hanson 
from official records to be a member of the Communist Bwrty» Budenz 1 infor** 
mation was based, according to his testimony, on oral information received 
in 1940 and 1941* Budenz thought Jack Stachel gave him Hanson's name* 
Budenz testified that the first time he had indicated to anyone that Hanson 
had ever been reported to him as a Communist was a week prior to his 
testimony on April 25, 1950, when he gave Hanson 1 s name, among others, to 
the FBI* Hanson declared he was given a complete clearance by the Department 
of State following a comprehensive investigation by the FBI under the 
Loyalty Program. He testified on March 28, 1950, he thought subversives 
could be ferreted out by the quiet, sober, thorough methods now used by the 
FBI* 

The Committee stated it was clear that (l) Hanson was not, as 
claimed by Senator McCarthy, "one of the most strategically important 
officers in the entire State Department"; (2) that Hanson would not, as 
alleged by Senator McCarthy, head a pro grain charged with expending hundreds 
of millions of dollars; and, (3) that information used by Senator McCarthy 
to uphold his allegations of pro-Communism against Hanson failed in 
credibility, relevancy, and competency* The testimony of Budenz left the 
Committee "tcua degree, in wonderment." In the face of the results of the 
FBI investigation, action of the Loyalty Board and the evidence presented, 
the Committee could not accept Budenz 1 testimony as controllings 

PHILIP 0. JESSUF 
(Pages 37 - 43) 

The Committee sets forth the allegations made against Dr* Jessup by 
Senator Joseph R» McCarthy in support of his general charge that Dr. Jessup 
possessed "an unusual affinity for Communist causes," and then proceed to show 
how Senator McCarthy had failed to substantiate the allegations* 

It is noted that the Committee's report states that "we have seen 
the loyalty file concerning Dr. Jessup which reflects no basis for considering 
him disloyal dr a security risk«" Actually, the Bureau f s reports reflect the 
following concerning Dr» Jessupt 

1. He was one of the Sponsors for a dinner held by the 
American Russian Institute in NewYork in 1946* 



12. 



2« Information from a reliable informant to the effect that 

in 1941 Jessup' s name appeared on a list of names maintained 
in the Headquarters . of the National Federation For 
Constitutional Liberties • 

3* That Dr» Jessup was a signer of a call for a "National 
Emergency Conference 11 in Hfeshington, D# C* in 1939* 

4» That he was a member of the Board of Sponsors of the 
"National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rigjats" 
%n 1940 • 

5# That he was Faculty Advisor of the "American Law Students 
Association," while at Columbia University. 

6* That his wife was a member of the China Aid Council* 

7«. That he was a member and an officer of the Institute of 
Pacific Relations ♦ 

Senator McCarthy* s charges included the above points, and the Committee's 
report takes up each, concluding that "the true facts, therefore, are that 
Dr. Jessup was shown to have been associated with only two organizations, in 
both cases prior to the date they were cited as Communist fronts*" The Committee 
concluded that "the facts before us fail completely to establish that Philip C« 
Jessup has f an unusual affinity for Communist causes 1 and that the Subcommittee 
felt that the accusations made against Dr» Philip C» Jessup are completely 
unfounded and unjustified, and have done irreparable harm to the prestige of the 
United States*" 

DOROTHY KENYON 
(Pages 43 - 48) 

With reference to Kenyon, the report set forth the admitted 
affiliations of Miss Kenyon, the affiliations of Miss Kenyon not denied, 
other alleged connections of Miss Kenyon, other evidence, and concluded 
with the statement that the evidence before the Subcommittee failed to 
establish that Dorothy Kenyon is a Communist or an otherwise disloyal person. 



13 




OWEH LATTIMORE 
(Pages U8-75) 

The Committee predicates this section of the report (pages k& 
to 7*0 with the statement that although Owen Lattimore was not an employee 
of the State Department in real or proper sense, inquiry was made on the 
basis of the charge that he was the "architect of our Far Eastern policy." 
Thereafter, Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges against Lattimore sire re- 
viewed and portions of the testimony tending to substantiate or refute 
those statements are commented upon. In their consideration of such 
testimony, the Committee finds generally that the charges of Senator 
McCarthy against Mr* Lattimore cure unsupported in fact and winds up with 
the comment, "We believe that the Lattimore case vividly, illustrates the 
danger of promiscuous and specious attacks upon private citizens and their 
views, and the imperative necessity that inquiries relating to matters of 
such character, where deemed relevant to our national security, should be 
handled by the duly constituted agencies of our government that are 
equipped to handle such matters by intelligent and proven methods designed 
to obtain the truth without injustice, character assassination, and a 
prostitution of the American concept of fair play.*.." 



Page 50 "McCarthy insisted that information concerning Lattimore 

in the FBI files would show 'in detail not the case merely 
of a man who appears to favor Russia, not the case of a man 
who might disagree with what we think about Russia, but a 
man who is definitely an espionage agent... 1 

"The foregoing assertion had to be taken by us at the 
outset with the proverbial 'grain of salt'; for if the FBI 
had evidence that Lattimore was a top Russian spy, either 
the FBI was derelict (which we do not believe) in not prose- 
cuting him, or Senator McCarthy was compromising an FBI 
investigation which might result in prosecution." 

With reference to possible dereliction by the Bureau for not 
prosecuting Lattimore, this is erroneous inasmuch as the question of 
prosecution is not one within the Bureau's province. 



Page $k "Father Kearney was interviewed by the FBI and advised 

that he had no direct knowledge of Mr. Lattimore 's activities 
and that the principal source of his information had been 



14 

EMG:EFF 



Alfred Kohlberg of the American-China Policy Association 
of New York City. (Footnote— A letter from the Department 
of Justice confirming this statement will he found in the 
sub committee's record.)" 

This is an accurate though partial statement of the information 
given hy Father James F. Kearney when interviewed by Bureau Agents on 
January 20, 1950. 

(Brief, page ±6; 100-24628-80) 



Pages 56-57 — In commenting on the testimony of Louis Budenz, the 

report contains the statement, "The subcommittee also notes 
that only since this investigation and the publicity con- 
cerning Lattimore in connection therewith has Budenz given 
information to the FBI concerning Lattimore, even though 
Budenz has been reporting for several years to the FBI on 
various Communist activities and personalties. .. .Similarly 
in the case of Haldore Sanson, Budenz admitted that Hanson 
was named by him as a Communist for the first time during 
the course of our proceedings." 

This is an accurate statement, on April 15, 1950, Louis Budenz 
advising that he had never mentioned to the Bureau what he knew about 
Lattimore prior to March 27, 1950, because his information was "flimsy" 
and "not legal" and he had devoted most of his time to furnishing legal 
evidence. (100-21*628-725,727) 

* * * * * * 

Pages 66-67 — "A summary of the files of the FBI pertaining to Owen 

Lattimore, prepared by that organization, was made available 
to members of the subcommittee for review. Whereas this 
summary indicated Lattimore 1 s association and contact with 
some individuals of known and alleged Communist and pro- 
Communist views, there was no evidence therein proving 
Lattimore himself to be a man of willful pro -Communist 
actions or views. The evidence did not show him to be 'a 
top Soviet espionage agent* or a member of the Communist 
Party or Communist underground. The information concerning 
Lattimore, testified to by Louis Budenz, was not in the 
possession of the FBI, according to Budenz' own testimony, 
at the time members of this subcommittee reviewed the 
summary.... 



15 



"The foregoing discussion of the information available 
to us (this phrase apparently includes information set 
forth in the FBI summary) is quite devoid of any proof 
that Mr. Lattimore was 'one of the top Communist agents. 1 " 

This statement is misleading in that it does not properly reflect 
the information made available to members of the subcommittee. On March 
23, 1950, there was delivered to Mr. Clive Palmer, of the Criminal Division, 
a memorandum to Mr. Peyton Ford, dated March 22, 1950, with which was trans- 
mitted an eleven-page summary memorandum on Owen Lattimore. This memorandum 
was displayed to members of the subcommittee. It contained biographical 
information concerning Owen Lattimore, as well as information concerning 
his association with the State Department and the United Nations. The 
memorandum also referred to reports from various sources indicating 
Lattimore f s alleged implication in Soviet intelligence activities. In 
this connection, however, it was noted that although an extensive inves- 
tigation had been conducted between March 19*4-9 and the date of the 
memorandum, no tangible evidence had been uncovered to corroborate the 
allegations or to indicate that he was involved in Soviet espionage activity, 
The memorandum made reference to a number of allegations concerning 
Lattimore, Indicating his reported affiliation with Communist-front groups, 
participation in Communist-sponsored activity, and association with known 
or suspected Communist Party members and individuals suspected of having 
acted as Soviet agents. (100-24628-264) 



Page 68 "Senator McCarthy also said this:.... f It will be re- 
called that J. Edgar Hoover at the time said this was a 
"100-percent airtight case against Service, Both, and 
their co-defendants."* ... .The Department of Justice has 
advised the Department of State that Mr. Hoover never made 
the widely publicized statement that there was a f 100-percent 
airtight case' against the Amerasia defendants. (Footnote-- 
This letter will be found printed in the subcommittee 
record.)" 

K\ In this connection, by memorandum dated May 23, 1950, you protested 
against such use of your name, particularly when that use did not accurately 
reflect your views. For the information of the Attorney General, you pointed 
out that on April 12, 1950, John Stewart Service, one of the subjects in 
that investigation, had asked if you had made a public statement to the 




r 



D 



effect that the case against him was a hundred per cent airtight. Under . 
date of April 18, 1950, you advised Mr. Service that you had made no 
public statement on the Amerasia case since the period wherein the arrests 
occurred, and pointed out to him that the FBI did not pass on the evidence 
it collected during its investigations hut that such evidence was turned 
over to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. You advised 
Mr. Service, "I presume that they (meaning the Criminal Division of the 
Department) must have been satisfied with the evidence presented to them 
by the FBI as they authorized the arrests to be made in this case." 

You also pointed out to the Attorney General that on May k, 
1950, you had informed Mr. Peyton Ford that you could not approve his 
proposed answer (subsequently released by the Department of State) to 
an inquiry on May 1, 1950* from Mr. John E. Peurifoy, of the Department 
of State, as to whether you had publicly stated that the case was a 
hundred per cent airtight. You advised the Attorney General that in your 
communication of May k, 1950, to Mr. Peyton Ford, you pointed out that 
in the event you had been asked at the time the arrests were made whether 
you thought we had an airtight case, you would have stated that you 
thought we had, and that if asked today you would have to so state. 



17 



Pages 68-69- — "Senator McCarthy also said this: " 

nf I have another statement which I had a great deal of 
difficulty getting* I had no difficulty obtaining the infor- 
mation from, this man, but he was extremely reluctant to sign 
a statement, fearing that his job might be endangered if he 
did so****« 

"'He gave his consent to his name and this statement being 
given to the FBI* We had to promise him, however, that his 
name would not be given to this committee 

111 Then I have another statement gotten under almost the 
same circumstances, which is being turned over to the Bureau*. **#* 

"The Department of Justice furnished the following information 
concerning the June 2, 1945 meeting at Lattimore f s home to which 
Senator McCarthy referred* n (hereafter the report set forth 
information obtained from the Department of Justice concerning 
the two statements)* 

In referring to the meeting at Lattimore f s home on June 
2, 1945, the report states t 

"The FBI found no evidence during its most thorough investiga- 
tion of the Am eras i a case to indicate that any Government documents 
were involved in this incident* " 

On March 30, 1950, Senator McCarthy furnished to the Bureau a 
two-page, handwritten, signed statement dated March 26, 1950, unattested, 
of Alberta R. Carter and a one-page, handwritten, signed statement, undated 
and unattested, of her husband, George F # Carter, a Professor at Johns 
Hopkins University, Baltimore^ Maryland* The statement of George F. Carter 
appears to be an addendum to the statement of Alberta H« Carter and both 
statements set forth information concerning the visit of the Carters at 
the home of Owen Lattimore in "June, 1945 M when John S* Service and Lieutenant 
Andrew Roth were also present* The remarks of Senator McCarthy concerning 
the acquisition of these statements tended to convey the erroneous impression 



18 



that the information embodied therein was first acquired by him at that time* 
In fact, on February 9, 1950, George F. Carter was interviewed by Bureau 
representatives, at which time he furnished information in considerable detail 
concerning Owen Lattiaiore as well as detailed information concerning the 
Carters 1 Sunday afternoon visit in "June, 1945" at the home of Lattimore when 
John S. Service and Lieutenant Andrew Both were also present. On the 
occasion of this interview, George F. Carter exhibited a willingness to 
assist in any way that he could though he made the request *tfeat his identity 
be kept confidential. (100-24628-155) 

On April 6, 1950, Mrs* George F. Carter was interviewed by Bureau 
representative^ at which time she could add no information of value concerning 
the "June, 1945" visit at the Lattimore home to that which had been furnished 
by her husband on February 9, 1950* (100-246.28-522) 



Page 70— -—"Senator McCarthy also referred to an affidavit covering testimony 
which could be given by a former general in -foe Red Army***.* The 
affidavit was turned over to the FBI by Senator McCarthy. The 
Department of Justice has advised, with reference to this, in the 
following terms*..*.." (Thereafter was set forth information 
"purported" to have been given by the former general in the Red 
Army to an investigator for Senator McCarthy). 

On March 50, 1950, Senator McCarthy furnished to the Bureau a 
document entitled, "Expected Testimony from Alexander Barmine" reflecting 
that while he was a general in the Red Army and in Moscow, he learned from 
"General Berzin, " a high official in Soviet Intelligence, that excellent 
success had been obtained through the Institute of Pacific Relations which 
the Soviet Intelligence, through Communists in the United States, had taken 
over. During this conversation which occurred in the middle 1930's, "General 
Bersin" mentioned in particular Owen Lattimore and one Joseph Barnes as 
Soviet men connected with the Institute. A handwritten notation on this 
document reflects that the information therein was related to Donald A* 
Surine by Alexander Barmine on March 29, 1950. 



Alexander Gregory-Graff Barmine, a former Soviet diplomatic 
official who defected from the Soviets in 1937 and entered the United States 
in 1940, upon interview by Bureau representatives on December 14, 1948, 
furnished information to the effect that General I* Ber sine had, while 
Banaine was in Moscow, mentioned that the Soviets had some Americans working 
for them in China* Barmine named Owen Lattimore as one of the individuals* 
Barmine was reinterviewed by Bureau representatives on March 27, 1950, at 
which time, he enlarged upon the previous information he had furnished con- 
cerning Lattimore and placed Lattimore in a Soviet Military Intelligence 
network in China, which used as .a cover for its operation, the Institute 
of Pacific Relations, (100-127090-46; 74-13333-1146j 100-24628-264, 267, and 1222) 



Page 71*— —-"Senator McCarthy further stated on the Senate floors 

n $I have before me another affidavit, the original of which 
is being handed to -foe FBI** •••He states that Lattimore was a 
leader in several pro-Russian student uprisings in China* *" 
(The report then quoted information concerning this allegation, 
noting that it had been received in a communication from the 
Department of Justice which is printed in the record)* 

On March 30, 1960, Senator McCarthy furnished the Bureau a five- 
page, handwritten, signed statement of Upton Close, dated "Mar* 1950" in 
which it appears that Lattimore, in the early 1920*6, was involved in 
several student uprisings in China along withother Chinese students* 
It was also indicated in the statement that Lattimore enjoyed a kind of 
leadership in the group* 

On April 1, 1950, Upton Close, McLean, Virginia, was interviewed 
by Bureau representatives concerning Owen Lattimore* Close advised that 
he first knew Lattimore around 1920 in China, at which time Lattimore was 
associated with Young Chinese students who became more and more taken over 
with Communist activity* Lattimore was considered somewhat of a leader 
and was an inspiring factor in these Chinese students uprisings* Mr* 
Close also advised that he had no knowledge reflecting that Lattimore was 
engaged in espionage for the Soviets, but felt that he was a Communist 
and that he had been a member of, and in contact with "Communist cells* n 

(100-24628-279) 



20 



Page 72 In its conclusion concerning Owen Lattimore, the Committee 

reported that they found that Lattimore was not now and never 
had been in any proper sense an employee of our State Depart- 
ment; that he had no controlling or effective influence whatever 
on our Far Eastern policy; and that they found no evidence that 
he was the "top Russian spy" or any other sort of spy. In this 
connection, the report contained the statement: 

"We have every confidence that were Mr. Lattimore an 
espionage agent the efficient FBI would long since have taken 
action against him. The fact that it has not done so and 
the further fact that we have seen a summary of the FBI's in- 
formation concerning Mr. Lattimore confirms our opinion in 
this respect." 

These latter conclusions, in so far as they concern the FBI, are, 
of course, unwarranted. As mentioned above, it is not within the province 
of the FBI to institute prosecutive action against a subject of investiga- 
tion, nor can the FBI summary of March 22, 1950 (since supplemented by 
additional investigation) be properly construed as a clearance of Lattimore 
in connection with the charges made against him. 



Page 73 "Owen Lattimore is a writer and a scholar who has been 

charged with a record of pro-Communism going back many years. 
There is no legal evidence before us whatever (this apparently 
includes information set forth in the FBI summary) to support 
this charge .... 

" ... .we are compelled to comment that in no instance has 
Mr. Lattimore on the evidence before us been shown to have 
knowingly associated with Communists . " 

The nature of the FBI summary of March 22, 1950, has been set 
forth previously in this memorandum. It is true, however, that the memo- 
randum in itself does not constitute "legal evidence*" 



MOTE : Page 62, of the copy of the report as submitted to the Bureau, 

is missing and consequently has not been reviewed. 



21 



FREDERIC K L. SCHO M&N 
(Page ?5) 

The Subcommittee found that Frederick L. Schuman has never been 
an employee of the State Department and that his only connection with the 
Department was to deliver a one hour lecture at the Foreign Service 
Institute on June 19 i 19 U6. 



JOHN _STEWftflT SECTICE 
' (Pages 7b-9U) 

The repbrt of the Subcommittee stated that the charges against 
John Stewart Service have a dual character; (1) that he is pro-Communist 
as indicated by (a) his reports from China during the period 19H3 to April, 
19U5* in which he allegedly advocated the cause of the Chinese Communists, 
and (b) his associations during the same period j (2) that he was involved 
in the . abstraction of Government documents in connection with the Amerasia 
case. 

During the discussion of Service's connection with the Amerasia- 
case, it was stated that Senator McCarthy made the allegation, both as a 
witness and on the floor of the Senate, - that w The FBI then took over and 
reported. that in the course of its quest it was found that John Stewart 
Service was in communication from China with Jaffe ♦" Iri this connection, 
the following similar statement is attributed to Emanuel S # Larsen in his 
article in Plain Talk: "The FEE then took charge of the affair. As 
established by Congressmen Dondero, the Government agents spent several 
months on the case. In ^e course of their quest, it was found that John 
S. Service was in communication from China with Mr. Jaffe." We, of course, 
did not show that Service was in communication from China with Jaffe. In \ 
later referring to this statement attributed to both Senator McCarthy and 
Larsen, the Subcommittee report states, "The evidence reveals that Mr* 
Service did not contact Jaffe from China. The allegation to the contrary 
is based on Larson's Plain Talk article, which was repudiated by him." 

On Pages 8k and 85 of the Subcommittee report are set out brief, 
statements of Service* s 'activities on some of the days he was covered by 
physical surveillance . Then follows an explanation by Service of meetings 
shown by the surveillance. The Subcommittee report states: "This explana- 
tion by lfi% Service before us of his contacts with the other subjects in 
the Amerasia case is almost an exiact duplicate of that given by him before 
the grand jury. It is significant to us that, at the time Service appeared 
before the grand jury, he had no knowledge of the physical surveillance, or 
at least no knowledge of what it revealed. Yet his explanation accounted 
for every meeting reported by the FBI. When this is coupled with the fact 



22 



I 



that his explanation was verified by the FBI and found to be correct, no 
other conclusion can be made but that we, like the grand jury, must find 
that the explanation is consistent with complete* innocence ♦" Prior to his 
appearance before the grand jury, Service, of course, did give a lengthy 
statement to Agents during which he furnished much of the material covering 
his meetings and contacts* 

On Pages 87 and 88, under the caption "Technical Surveillance," is 
set out a partial transcript of conversation between Service and Jaffe in 
Jaffe 1 s hotel room on May 8, 19U5* and this transcript is referred to as a 
"verbatim quotation 11 by the Subcommittee in its report* It is noted that on 
Page 87 $ one statement is attributed to Service when actually our transcript 
reflects that the statement was made by Jaffe j this statement is, "I guess 
these are the only things, 1 * and it is made during a discussion of what the 
Chinese were doing at San Francisco. Then too, throughout the reporting of 
this transcript in the Subcommittee report there appear some changes in 
punctuation, but not to the extent that it appears that the meaning of the 
text is changed* On Page 88, in reporting a statement of Service, following 
a space left blank to indicate an unintelligible word or words, the words 
"something skipped" have been inserted and may be interpreted as words spoken 
by Service* 

Following the "verbatim" account of the recording, there is set 
out "several statements prepared by the FBI" which, in summary form relate 
additional conversation between Service and. Jaffe* 

On Page 91> it is reported that Mr, Brookes Atkinson appeared 
before the State Department Loyalty and Security Board as a witness and 
verified statements made by Service concerning an article prepared by 
Atkinson regarding General Stilwell's recall* Service had explained that 
Atkinson had written a story in the -New York Times for October 31* 19UU, 
which contained the gist and the only important part of the story regarding 
General Stilwell's recall; that he (Service) had returned to the United 
States with Atkinson and had read the draft of his article while traveling. 
Following Service's apprehension by Bureau Agents, it should be noted, 
Atkinson had been, quite critical of the Bureau. 

On Page 91, the following is also set outi "It is most significant 
to note that Mf # Service arrived in Washington — April 12, 19hB — and the 
date the FBI first found him in contact with a subject in the Amerasia case — 
April 19, 19h5. On March 11, 19hS $ the OSS raided the offices of Amerasia 
and found there were numerous Government documents therein* Service pointed 
out that, manifestly,- Jaffe 1 s source of Government documents had been fully 



23 



developed by ttettime, which was prior to Mr. Service's return to the 
United States, Tffe note in this regard that on April 18, 19U5, the FBI 
had a conference with General Holmes of the State Department and Major 
Correa of the Navy Department.. At that time, the Bureau indicated that 
it was ready to present it for such prosecutive action as the Department 
of Justice might think proper* On this date, Service had not yet met 
JSffe, Mitchell, or Larsen and had met Mark Gaynefor the first time on 
that day....* 

In concluding its report of the case of John Stewart Service, the 
Subcommittee stated, "We have carefully considered the evidence and conclude 
that John Stewart Service is neither a disloyal person, a pro-Communist nor 
a security risk. We have been particularly impressed with the frankness 
and cooperativeness of Mr ♦ Service in his appearance before us. Many 
questions with hidden implications have been asked him about events that 
transpired many years ago* Never did he seek to avoid answering on the 
ground he could not remember but always gave this subcommittee the benefit 
of any recollection he might have. In addition, he waited his immunity and 
voluntarily appeared before the grand jury in August of 19U£» After hear- 
ing all the f apts, the grand jury unanimously voted not to indict Mr. Service, 
We could not fail to be impressed also by the almost continuous scrutiny to 
which he has been subjected during the last five years. He has been cleared 
four times by either the State Department Personnel Board of the State 
Department Security and Loyalty Board." Continuing, the Subcommittee 
reported, "We have also found significant the fact that Emmanuel S. Larsen 
admitted to the FEE that he had furnished Jaffe with the eight ozalid copies 
of the Service reports found in Jaffe 1 s brief case when he was arrested." 
In a signed statement given to Bureau- Agents on June 7> 19U!?> Larsen stated 
that he last saw Jaffe on Monday, May 28th, 19U5, at the Statler Hotel and 
at that time he did not give him any documents* ^That evening, Jaffe visited 
him at his home and he showed haja two State Department reports by. Jack 
Service. Jaffe expressly asked for Service's last reports, according to 
Larsen, which he apparently knew. Larsen admitted that in addition to these 
two reports, he had in the past given Jaffe a number of classified documents 
to read and they may have numbered six to ten documents in all. 



HARLOW SHAPEEY 
(Page 9h) 

Inquiry by the Subcommittee established that Dr. Harlow Shapley 
is not an employee of the Department of State in any real and proper sense. 
He was appointed a member of the United States delegation to the Preparatory 



24 



Conference for UNESCO at London in 19b$* On May 20, 19ii7, and June 27, 
19h7) Shapley was designated by the Executive Committee of the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science and "was appointed by the Secretary 
of State to serve as a representative of that association on the United 
States National Commission for UNESCO. His term expired April 15, 19$0. 
The Subcommittee stated that within the proper purview of its inquiry, no 
consideration need be^ given the charges made against Er« Shapley* 



JOHN CARTER VINCENT 
(Page 95; ~~ 

The Subcommittee disposed of McCarthy's allegations concerning 
Vincent in two paragraphs, stating that "we have carefully reviewed the 
loyalty file concerning Mr # Vincent and the McCarthy charges are absurd '/ 
on the basis thereof . The investigation of Hr« Vincent does not show him 
to. be disloyal or a security risk* 11 / 

In stating that the loyalty file concerning Vincent had been 
reviewed, it is believed that the report has reference to the State Depart- 
ment security file pertaining to hinu You will recall that the Bureau is 
conducting a loyalty investigation of Vincent follomng submission of 
available data to the Department for an opinion as to whether such an 
investigation should be conducted. After consulting the State Department, 
the Department advised that we should proceed with a loyalty investigation* 

SHffifflg WTTH mWITiOT TO "FffT CHART", 
(Pages 9? and 96) 

The Subcommittee here refers to the speech by Senator McCarthy 
before the Senate on June 6, 19$0, where he presented a photostatic copy 
of a page of a report stated to be based on an FEE chart, allegedly 
indicating "Agents," "Communists," ^Sympathizers) 1 ; and "Suspects," as employed 
in the State Department* The Subcommittee states that while these charges 
are not before the Committee, a. great deal of publicity has been accorded 
the so-called FBI Chart and in view of this situation it is believed that 
the facts of the matter should be set forth* Thereafter, there is quoted a 
portion of a letter dated June 28, 19^0, from Mr. John E. Peurifoy, Deputy 
Undersecretary of State, identifying the report in question as having been 
prepared by Mr. Klaus, then assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Administration, in connection with a survey of Departmental security 
investigations. It is observed that on Pages 29 and 30 of the KLaus report, 
reference is made to a chart alleged to have been prepared. by the FEE* M% 
Peurifoy thereafter states no such chart was ever received by the Department 



of State from the FEE, nor was such a chart ever prepared by the FHEj that 
it had been conclusively determined that the chart was not prepared by the 
FBI but was prepared as an investigators working document in the Depart- 
ment of State in 19h6 and by employees of the Department of States that 
the writer of the report drew the unintentional erroneous conclusion that 
the chart was prepared by the FEU Mr* Peurifoy makes reference to a 
letter dated June lb, 1950," addressed by the Director to the State Depart- 
ment advising that the FEE did not send any such chart to the State 
Department and made no evaluation of information as was indicated in the 
Klaus report* This letter dated June li±, 19f>0, addressed by the Director 
to Mr. James E. Webb, Undersecretary of State, is quoted verbatim in the 
Subcommittee's report. It is also noted that Mr. Peurifoy' s letter to 
the Subcommittee of June 28, 1950, assures the members that none of the 
employees named on the chart in question are presently employed by the 
State Department except those who have since been investigated and who 
have been checked and evaluated under the Loyalty Program. 

Additional details concerning the State Department's repudiation 
of Senator McCarthy's comments concerning the chart in question are contained 
in State Department .releases of June 6, and June 9, 1950, reproduced in 
Appendix 17 of the Subcommittee's report. 



26 



AMERASIA CASE 
(Pages 96-lUi) 

The Amerasia Case is covered in the report made available by the 
Tydings Committee beginning on page 96 and ending on page 144* 

A review has been made of these pages for any items which are 
critical of the Bureau, any inaccuracies as to the facts of the case as 
they are known to the Bureau, and for any other matters which are of 
interest to the Bureau* The following have been noted: 

Page 101 

Mr. Mclnerney's testimony under footnote #324 shows that the Bureau 
took over the investigation on a twenty-four hour basis beginning March 12, 
1945* This statement is inaccurate because the Bureau did not receive the 
case until March 14, 1945, and the investigation was commenced on the follow- 
ing day, March 15, 1945 • 

Page 102, last paragraph, and first paragraph top of page 103 

This part of the report covers the Bureau 1 s answers to questions 
asked by Senator! Tydings in connection with this case* 

"QUESTION: Were any employees of the State Department seen giving documents to 
other persons on the outside? 

"ANSWER: While actual physical delivery of documents was not observed, 
the fact remains that hundreds of classified documents were recovered from 
unauthorized persons on June 6, 1945* Larsen and Service were observed in 
frequent contact with Jaffe and Roth. Service also met with Mark Gayn and 
has stayed in his New York apartment. Both Larsen and Service have admitted 
giving documents to Jaffe* larsen and Service were also observed carrying 
envelopes or a zipper case out of the State Department* As a further illus- 
tration of the operations of this group, Service met with Jaffe in a hotel 
room on May 8, 1945* Service discussed military, political, and policy 
matters with Jaffe and cautioned him by saying?, 'Well, what I said about 
the military plans is, of course, very secret. *« 

It is noted that the answer to the above question is the same 
as the answer to question #5 contained in the statement furnished to the 
Tydings Committee by Messrs, Nichols and Ladd on May 31, 1950; however, 
the following was omitted "(as we are advised by departmental attorneys.)" 



27 



It is also noted that footnote #328 on page 103 states that the 
statement attributed to Service was not available to the Department of 
Justice for utilization before the Grand Jury inasmuch as the report con- 
cerning the conversation between Jaff e and Service was received by the 
Department of Justice with the following caveat from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation, "Most of the foregoing information regarding the contacts 
made by the various principles and documents which were exchanged were 
obtained through highly confidential means said sources of information 
which cannot be used in evidence/ 1 

The report covering the conversation between Service and Jaff e 
at the Statler Hotel on May 8, 19^5 (report of Special Agent Logan J. Lane, 
Washington Field Office, dated 5-26-45), did not contain any statement as 
set forth above; however, Bureau letter to Mr. Tom Clark of the Department, 
dated May 29, 19^5, which outline^, the facts in this case as of that date, 
did contain such a statement verbatim on page 8, paragraph 2, under the 
heading "Evidence/ 1 (100-267360-237, 260 p. 8) 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Page 103 , footnote #331 , and page 104, paragraph 7 

Mr, Mclnerney, according to his testimony as shown in footnote 
#331 > page 103, stated as follows: 

u When the case came to me on May the 29th, I was aware, of 
course, of its inception and thg nature of the manner in which 
it started, and as we had done in other cases during the wartime, 
we authorized prosecution even though we knew that the evidence 
was tainted, and we authorized prosecution because the Bureau had 
been very successful in obtaining concessions and admissions which 
obviated the necessity of having to tender this evidence or offer 
it in court, and those were the two conclusions I came to on May 
the 29th, or three conclusions, 

"One, that the case was vulnerable because of its inception on the 
part of OSS; Two, that in evaluating the legal evidence, which 
largely consisted of physical surveillance only, that we did not 
then have sufficient evidence to authorize prosecution, 

"The third conclusion was that since the Bureau has obtained 
concessions and admissions in over 80 per cent of its cases, 
that with the usual break in the prosecution here, we would 
get incriminating admissions and concessions which would obviate 
a trial, and show the need tot presenting or tendering this 
evidence " 



23 



Page 104 paragraph 7 

The report then goes on to state that Mr. Mclnerney in explaining his 
authorization of prosecution stated that he did so "sinces our experience has 
already been that to. can make a case on an apprehension and search*" The report 
further states that it appears, therefore, that, while realizing insufficient 
legal evidence was at hand, Mr. Mclnerney authorized prosecution on the theory 
that a search conducted incident to the arrest of the six subjects would produce 
the required evidence, taken with the possibility of securing confessions following 
the arrests. The report also says that Mr. Mclnerney authorized prosecution 
despite his feeling that the case might be vulnerable and the evidence developed 
also would be held inadmissible in a Court proceeding by reason of the investi- 
gative techniques that had been employed by OSS and. FBI* 

Page 107 footnote 345 

Mr, Mclnerney testified that as early as June 27, 1945 Tr We were being 
inundated with threatened motions to suppress the evidence, bills of particulars 
and return of the property, etc # » 

This is the first knowledge the Bureau has received that any of the 
attorneys for the subjects had considered filing a motion to suppress the evidence 
at a date as early as June 27, 1945 ♦ It will be recalled that Larsen filed such 
a motion on September 28, 1945# 

Pages 118 to 122. 

The committee report states the Department did not prosecute Jaffe, 
Larsen and Roth after the other three subjects had been no^billed by the Grand 
Jury for the following three reasons: . 

1. Larsen filed a motion to suppress the evidence on September 28, 
1945 claiming the FBI had entered his apartment illegally prior 
to the date of his arrest, 

2. The Department had the belief that Jaffe »s attorney might file 
a similar motion as to the Amerasia Offices, thereby destroying 
the evidence against Jaffe and the. other subjects. Having this 
belief, the Departoent decided to enter into an immediate 
agreement with Jaffe 's attorney to plead him guilty on 
September 29, 1945 s before Jaffe *s attorney had a chance to 
change his mind. 



29 



3. The Department attorneys had interviewed I&rsen and Jaffe and 
neither of them offered any information to strengthen the case 
against Roth and, therefore, the Department entered a nolle 
prosse as to Roth* 

Page 130 paragraph 6 

The report stated as follows: 

"On September 28, 1945 the Criminal Division was informed 
that Larsen' s attorney was about to file a demurrer, motion to 
quash the indictment and an application to suppress the evidence 
obtained from the search of Larsen ! s apartment*" 

"Representatives of the Criminal Division conferred with 
FBI officials on the morning of September 28, 1945, and it was 
generally agreed that the case was in serious jeopardy • A number 
of suggestions were made and discarded* " 

The above statement as to a conference between representatives of the 
Criminal division and FBI officials on the morning of September 28, 1945 > is 
false ♦ The statement as made here would lead one to believe that the Bureau 
and Departmental Representatives had conferred as to what steps should be taken 
with respect to Larsen* s motion*. However, if any conferring was done and 
suggestions made, the Bureau had no part* The true facts are as follows: 

By memorandum dated September 26, 1945 the Bureau notified, 
the Attorney General that Mr» E. R* Sager, Manager of Larsen f s 
apartment told an Agent of the Washington Field Office on 
September 25, 1945 that he had admitted to Larsen on the 
previous date that he had afforded Agents of the FBI access 
to Larsen 1 s apartment. This information was furnished to the 
Attorney General with the suggestion that if a Departmental 
Representative would talk to Sager, that Sager would be 
ins true ted" to 1 call at the Department of Justice* No further 
action was taken by the Bureau at that time* 

(100-267360 serial 685) 

Page 131 

Disposition of Case Against Larsen 

The report stated, "With the case of Jaffe safely disposed of in what 
was considered a mariner satisfactory under the circumstances, the Department 
was still confronted with a motion to suppress filedby Larsen* A number of 



30 



conferences were held with the attorneys for Larsen and Roth in an effort to 
obtain pleas of guilty but without success. Larsen* s attorney at first took 
the position he would not consider a plea until his motion to suppress was 
decided. 

"The time for filing the Government's response to the motion to suppress 
was deferred. In response to the motion, the Government would have been obliged 
to admit the illegality of the search and seizure . However, the necessity for 
making this admission was averted when Larsen 1 s counsel finally offered to 
plead his client nolo contendere if he could receive some assurance that only a 
moderate fine would be imposed. He pointed out that Larsen had been Imposed 
upon by Jaffe, that he had lost his Government position which he had held for 
10 years, that lie was unemployed and penniless, and that he had a wife and 
family dependent upon him. 

"The Government was aware of these facts and finally agreed, if con- 
sulted by the Court to recommend a fine of $500. This position was taken largely 
because of the above factors and also because we realized that Jaffe was the 
main culprit, that he had corrupted Larsen and was responsible for his plight, 
and that it would be manifestly unjust for Larsen to receive a sentence greater 
or even equal to that imposed upon Jaffe. Larsen entered a plea of nolo con- 
tendere on November 2, 19^5 and was fined $500, as recommended by the Government." 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 

Pages 131 to 133 

Disposition of Case Against Roth 

The report stated, "Only the case against Roth now remained. This 
case was very weak and depended on several pages of handwriting and typewriting 
(identified as Roth's) of what appeared to be official documents. On September 
27, 19^5 > Roth had filed a demurrer attacking the indictment and a motion for a 
bill of particulars. Argument on these motions had been postponed from time to - 
time. 

"At the time the Department offered to accept pleas of guilty from 
Jaffe and Larsen the Governments attorneys informed their counsel that Jaffe 
and Larsen would be examined by the Government counsel in an attempt to try to 
strengthen the case against Roth. This was done and both men were interviewed 
in November and December, 19^5* 

"Larsen, interviewed with respect to Roth's complicity, was unable to 
make any contribution except that Roth arranged the introduction between him and 
Jaffe early in V^k while both he and Roth were employed by 0HI. He could not 
implicate Roth in the conspiracy and as a matter of fact his statement tended to 
exculpate Roth, a result for which he had no known motive. After relating the 






* 



facts as to how he was introduced to Jaffe and Roth in March, 19*&, Larson stated 
that at no time did Roth and he ever discuss Larsen 1 s transactions with Jaffe, 
nor did he and Jaffe discuss them in the presence of Roth, Larsen stated that 
he had no facts whatsoever that would indicate that Roth knew that he, Larsen, 
was supplying documents to Jaffe. Larsen said that Roth never saw him give Jaffe 
any mater ial nor saw Jaffe give any # material to him (Larsen). Larsen further 
stated that he never saw Roth deliver anything to Jaffe, and that Jaffe never 
told him that he, Jaffe, was getting any material from Roth; nor did Roth ever 
tell Larsen that he, Roth, was giving any mater ial to Jaffe. Larsen did 
mention one incident which occurred early in 19^5- He said that he saw Roth 
leave the Navy Department, with a large envelope filled with something; that 
Roth stated he was having lunch with Jaffe and that on the return of Roth he 
had nothing in his hand. Larsen asserted that whether Roth gave the contents 
of the envelope to Jaffe or what was in the envelope he, Larsen, does not know. 
Later Larsen corrected the date of this incident and said that it must have 
been late in 19W- rather than in 19^5- 

"Jaffe, a long-time friend and associate of Roth completely absolved 
Roth of any knowledge or participation in the matter and explained how Roth 
happened to copy several documents for him. This the Department expected since 
it was not naive enough to expect Jaffe to implicate Roth. 



"While the physical surveillances showed meetings between Roth and 
some of the others, he was never observed transmitting or receiving Government 
documents. Severed of these meetings were of a social nature. There was no 
evidence that Roth unlawfully removed any Government documents. Moreover, 
since the defendants were charged with conspiring to embezzle and remove 
Government documents, essential elements of the offense were the entering of 
each defendant into the agreement to commit those unlawful objects of the 
conspiracy, with knowledge of the existence thereof and intent to further its 
purposes in some manner. The prosecution would have had to prove these essential 
elements to secure convictions. As regards Roth, there was no proof that 
he entered into such an agreement with others, or that he had the knowledge 
and criminal intent to make a person a member of a conspiracy. 

"In view of the state of the evidence above outlined, the decision 
was reached that the case against Roth could not be successfully prosecuted. 
After several postponements of hearings. on motions brought by Roth's attorneys, 
and after an unsuccessful effort was made to place it on the pending inactive 
docket, the Government was forced to nolle prosse the case against him on 
February 15, 1946." 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 



32 



Commendatory Statement Concerning FBI ! s Action in This Case , 

On Page 133 the following paragraph appears in the Report: 

"This report is not intended to qualify the seriousness or gravity of 
this case. The FBI f s prompt and vigorous action in face of a situation already 
tainted with illegality was of inestimable service to this country. This report 
only deals with the difficulties of successful prosecution and the bases for the 
decisions made." 

Pages 138 to 144 

Summation by the Committee 

The Committee summarized its investigation of the ibaerasia Case in 
the following five points as set out hereafter: 

"1. It has been asserted that an effort was made to delay the investi- 
gation. The FBI has denied that there was any delay whatever in its investigation 
and that no efforts were made to "fix" the case insofar as the FBI is concerned* 

»2. Similarly, charges have been made that efforts were made to delay 
prosecution. These charges now appear to have stemmed from advice given the 
FBI on May 31, 1945, ty the Department of Justice that prosecution should be 
held in abeyance pending the outcome of the United Nations Conference . at San 
Francisco* This fact has precipitated a floodtide of speculation and unwarranted 
innuendos, cuLninating in the question of whether Alger Hiss* hand may have been 
in the picture. It is now crystal clear that the advice received by the FBI to 
hold the prosecution in abeyance originated in a desire of the late Mr, James 
Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, that the full implications of the proposed 
arrests in the Amerasia case be conveyed to the President in consideration of 
the delicate character of our conversation with the Soviet Union at the time 
and the treatment which the press would accord the case by reason of the 
Communist connections of some of the subjects* Upon learning of the matter, 
the President on June 2, 1945, personally ordered the FBI to proceed at once 
with the case and not to be deterred by instructions from anyone. The State 
Department was equally insistent upon prosecuting the case to the fullest. 
The facts clearly reveal there was no "delay" in handling the case in any 
real or substantial sense. 



33 



»3. It has been asserted that the Department of Justice failed to 
prosecute the case to the fullest and compromised it to the prejudice of the 
ends of justice. The officials directly responsible for prosecuting the case 
have testified under oath that they had absolutely a free rein in handling the 
case at all stages of the prosecution and were under no compulsion or restraint 
from any source whatever* There is not even a shred of evidence before us 
suggesting the contrary. It appears that the case was handled to the very best 
of their ability in the light of the legal and factual problems confronting 
them and their understanding of the law* Certainly common sense and fairness 
entitle Federal officials to the assumption that they have conscientiously done 
their duty, at least until facts to the contrary, not here present, are shown* 
The fact that' some of the defendants did not receive the "punishment which we 
today feel they deserved or which we would like to have seen them receive is 
the result of certain incidents of the case which have been heretofore dis- 
cussed and not the result of dereliction on the part of the prosecuting 
officials* Under all of the circumstances of the case, we are constrained 
to suggest that the Department was fortunate in securing the punishment that 
was meted out # 

"4. One of the most snide and disgusting charges in this case has 
been the suggestion that the handling of the Amerasia prosecution by Mr. 
Robert M. Hitchcock may have had a relationship to his subsequently becoming 
associated with a Buffalo, N# Y., law firm in which an uncle of one of the 
Amerasia defendants, Kate Mitchell, was a partner* There is* Absolutely no 
basis whatever for such a suggestion. The facts are that, many months after 
the Aznerasia case was disposed of, Mr. Hitchcock was approached for the first 
time by a member of the law firm with a view to his becoming an associate 
thereof to handle a special field of litigation for which he was peculiarly 
well equipped by reason of his trial experience* Significantly, this member 
of the firm had no knowledge of the relationship between his partner and 
Miss Mitchell* 

"5. There have also been allegations that the appearance of Philip 
Jacob Jaffe for sentencing on Saturday morning, September 29, 1945, was an 
unusual and unprecedented procedure, with the inference that something im- 
proper was involved. The persons who lend themselves to such a vicious 
fabrication do a grave injustice to the presiding judge, the Honorable James M# 
Proctor, in implying that he would permit any improper procedure. 

"The fact of the matter is that in the United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia, a judge is always assigned to duty on Saturday 
mornings. This judge is available for emergency cases and will also, at his 
discretion, handle brief matters for the convenience of counsel. It is not « 
at all unusual for a case to be heard on Saturday morning if the plea is 
changed from "not guilty" to "guilty" and a speedy disposition is desired by 
all parties. Moreover, it is customary for counsel to determine in advance 
that the judge is free and set a time to appear. Therefore, the Jaffe case 
was handled in the same routine manner as many other cases. 



34 



"There has also been criticism of the fact that the judge -was not ad- 
vised of the ^Communist connections'* of Philip Jacob Jaffe* Such a criticism 
is the direct result of a misunderstanding of the case* It must be remembered 
that Jaffe was charged with conspiracy to obtain unlawfully Government documents. 
The Government had no evidence of the transmission of these documents by Jaffe 
to others* The only conceivable purpose justifying the use of information 
about Jaffe 's Communist connections would be on a theory that it would indicate 
the possibility of a transmission of the information to the Soviet Union. To 
submit such allegations would in effect be an attempt \o show that espionage 
had been committed when a lesser crime was charged and pleaded to, despite 
the fact that no evidence was available to support a charge of espionage* 

"The Government attorneys handling the case were convinced that, unless 
they obtained a plea immediately, no conviction whatever of Jaffe could ever be 
obtained. They had first received word on Friday, September 28, 194-5, that 
Larsen planned to file a motion to quash* They believed that once Jaffe 
learned of the unauthorized entries into Larsen' s apartment, he would immediately 
follow the same procedure* Since illegal entries had been made in the Amerasia 
offices also, they were convinced that legally such a motion would be granted 
and the entire case lost* Therefore, only one alternative remained. They 
communicated, as heretofore discussed, with Jaffe f s attorney and entered into 
a binding agreement to accept a plea of guilty in return for a Government 
recommendation of a substantial fine as the punishment, this agreement being 
made before Jaffe 's attorney could learn of the news about Larsen 1 s motion to 
quash* 

"The. Government also considered it necessary to have the plea formally 
entered as soon as possible in order to eliminate any possibility that Jaffe 's 
attorney would back out on his commitment. ' In addition, Jaffe desired that the 
case be settled immediately, Onee the Government attorneys were before the Court 
with an agreement to recommend a fine, it was manifestly impossible for them to 
argue that the offense was so heinous, because of the subject's alleged Communist 
connections,, that a greater sentence should be imposed. If they attempted to 
do this, it would obviously release Jaffe from his commitment and he would be 
free to withdraw his plea and file his own motion to quash* 

"A further consideration bearing on this question is that the Govern- 
ment in 1945 did not have proof that Jaffe was a member of the Communist Party. 
The most they had was that Jaffe had some Communist connections, which were not 
per se illegal or reprehensible, especially in 1945 when the Soviet Union, at 
least for all practical purposes of public moment, was an ally and friend of 
the United Spates* The allegations of Communist connections would not have 
been legally admissible evidence and thus had no probative significance* 



35 



«g) 



"The matter of Jaffe's plea, therefore, resolves. itself into a question 
of legal judgment and tactics. If the Department of Justice attorneys were correct 
in their conclusion that the evidence was legally inadmissible and that any delay 
in acting would allow Jaff e to escape without punishment, . they were obviously 
right in their action. If, on the other hand, they made an error in legal 
judgment, their procedure was wrong. Since they choose the foraer, it follows 
that once committed to this course, they could not present the allegations of 
Jaffe's Communist connections, assuming they should have done so, without de- 
feating their own objective. Therefore, any criticism of the handling of the 
case before the Court is solely a question of the validity of the judgment 
of the Department of Justice attorneys. We do not feel it incumbent upon us 
to attempt to resolve this legal question, since we find that the Jaffe case was 
presented to the c ourt with the sole intention of furthering the best interests 
of the United States as the attorneys handling the matter in their best judgment 
and honest belief appraised the situation." 

Testimony of Messrs . Ladd and Nichols 

The testimony of Assistant to the Director. D. M. Ladd and Assistant 
Director L; B. Nichols, furnished to the subcommittee, on May 31, 1950, is not 
set out in the report in its entirety. However, from time to time, excerpts 
of their testimony are mentioned in footnotes. It is further noted that in 
Appendix I, which is a statement concerning the investigation by the sub- 
committee, under 10 (c), it is stated that one of the matters gone into by 
the subcommittee was the interrogation of Associate Director D. M. Ladd and 
Assistant Director L. D. Nichols of the FBI concerning the investigation of 
the Amerasia case. It is stated that these gentlemen advised they were in .a 
position to supply the full story of the case from the FBI's standpoint and 
that their testimony before the Subcommittee, along with the Hobbs Committee 
record, constituted the complete story. (Appendix I, pages 155, I56) 



36 



THE SOURCES OF THE CHARGES 
(Pages 144-H8) 

The Committee reported that after an extensive investigation it felt 
in a position to indicate the primary sources of the charges which have been 
made in this case* 

Charge of Iprfp ffumber of Communists in the State Department 

The Committee stated that investigatbrs of the House subcommittee, 
considering the State Department appropriation during the Eightieth Congress, 
prepared memoranda concerning 108 individuals based on information contained 
in State Department security files* These memoranda, continued the report, 
did not represent or purport to be a full analysis of the files involved and 
in some instances related to applicants never employed and to cases of 
mistaken identity; four committees of the Eightieth Congress did not regard 
the memoranda as significant or indicative of disloyalty in the State Depart- 
ment and they did not even submit a report concerning them* 

Selections from these 108 memoranda, dressed up to appear more 
sinister and alarming, it was charged, were used by Senator McCarthy as the 
basis for his February 20, 1950, speech on the Senate floor which precipitated 
the investigation and which were presented as information only recently given 
him covertly by "loyal" employees in the State Department* 

Charge That Communists and Other Disloyal Forces in the State 
Department Sabotaged American China Policy 

Three well-defined sources were said by the Committee to have been 
responsible for the charge that disloyal individuals have been responsible 
for the "failure of America's China policy." These were listed as perversion 
of the testimony of Patrick J* Hurley, former Ambassador to China, before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December, 1945j Alfred Kohlberg, 
New York City importer; and an article purportedly written by Emmanuel S» 
Larsen, one of the defendants in the Amerasia case, for the October, 1946, 
issue of Plain Talk. Larsen repudiated the latter article in all essential 
respects, submitting to £he Committee his draft — which bore "little or no 
resemblance to the articles which was published*" The action attributed to 
Isaac Don Levine, editor of Plain Talk, and his associates in connection with 
the article was condemned by the Committee as beneath contempt* 



37 



THE FACTS BEHIND THE CHARGE OF "WHITEWASH" 
(Pages 149-151) 

The Committee bitterly assails the charge that it had Whitewashed" 
the investigation into McCarthy's allegations concerning Communists in the 
Government, stating that such charges were an "organized campaign of 
vilification and abuse*" The report then gives an analysis of the campaign, 
stating that the factors responsible for such a campaign were: 

1* The necessity of creating the impression that the inquiry 
was not thorough and sincere in order to camouflage the fact that the 
charges made by Senator McCarthy were false and that the Senate and the 
American people had been deceived* The report states that from the beginning, 
Senator McCarthy had sought to leave the impression that the Committee was 
investigating him, instead of the "Disloyalty in the State Department, " because 
it is now known that he had no facts to support his "wild and baseless charges," 
and lived in mortal fear that this situation would be exposed* 

•I 
2* An effort to force upon the Committee the adoption of unfair 
methods and procedures which would permit the "conviction" of individuals on 
the basis of unwarranted considerations* The report stated that the Committee 
had tried to apply the principles of fair play, and when a charge against an 
individual was publicly made, to give that person a chance to make a public 
reply* The report claims that an attempt was made to force upon the Committee 
the "rankest sort of hearsay testimony, and. then when such testimony was not 
allowed, cries of "whitewash" were heightened* 

3* A third factor in the campaign to create the "whitewash" idea 
was the desire to leave the thought that the Committee was engaged in a covei*- 
up of something dark and sinister in the administration* The report states 
that this tactic was a political maneuver designed to obfuscate the fact that 
the proponents of the charge of disloyalty in the State Department were 
without facts, and was thwarted when the President opened the loyalty files 
to the Committee* 

4* The fourth factor in the "whitewash" campaign was the fact that 
a prominent newspaper chain (unnamed) was being sued for libel by one of the 
defendants in the Amerasia case with the result that, by seeking to force 
procedures and findings of a certain character, it was felt the suit would be 
unsuccessful* 



38 



The Committee *s report states that the campaign of vilification 
and "whitewash* had been partially successful due to the following 
c ons idera t ions j 

!• The fact that until now the Committee has not been in a position 
to tell the truth (about the "whitewash" charges) to the American people* 

2* "Another consideration is the oft-repeated and natural reaction 
of many good people that goes something like this - Well, there must be 
something to the charges, or a United States Senator would never have made 
them.'" 

3* The third consideration has been the readiness of maqy people 
to believe charges of disloyalty in the State Department by reason of the 
Alger Hiss case* 

U* The fourth and final consideration has been the vague uneasiness 
of many Americans concerning the ascendancy of the Communists in China and 
the decline of the Nationalist Government* The Committee feels that such a 
setting makes a fertile ground for the people to believe that someone, perhaps 
in our own State Department, may have been responsible for this situation* 
The Committee recommends the State Department "White Paper" to anyone desiring 
to know the real facts concerning American diplomacy in China during 1944-1949* 

GENERAL QBSERVATIOHS 
(F&ges 151*152) 

The report states that in concluding the report of its investigation, 
it was constrained -to make several observations which were regarded as 
fundamental* The first was that "It is, of course, clearly apparent that 
the charges of Communist infiltration of and influence upon the State Depart- 
ment are false*" The Committee states that "we have seen the technique of 
the *Big He, f employed by the totalitarian dictators with devastating success, 
utilized for the first time on a sustained basis in our history* " The 
Committee states that it is its sincere opinion that the charges of the 
character made in this case seriously impair the efforts of the agencies of the 
Government in combatting the problem of subversion* The report states that 
the charges made by McCarthy had succeeded to a great degree in doing what 
the Communists themselves had been trying arid were unable to do - divide our 
people here at home and our allies . abroad* 



39 



"We have seen how, through repetition and shifting untruths, 11 
states the report, "it is possible to delude great numbers of people*" It 
was noted that an analysis of this technique was contained in Appendix 24, 
a review of which follows* 



ANALYSIS OF THE CHARGES MADE BT SEMTCft 
JOSEPH R. McCARTHI 
(Appendix 24, Pages 296 r 337) 

The Committee notes that on February 9> 1950, Senator McCarthy 
opened a campaign against the Department of State which of its kind was 
perhaps the most sensational in the history of the United States* "Un- 
paralleled in cynical character assassination," reports the Committee, "ranging 
in its application from the President of the United States to minor Washington 
clerks, professionally and expertly keyed to lurid sensationalism, viciously 
unscrupulous in falsely heightening the fears of the public in a time of 
international crisis, versatile, opportunistic, and, at times, desperate, 
Senator McCarthy gave birth to and steadily nurtured a phenomenon designated, 
by common consent, as f McCarthysim , "» 

Appendix 24 is a Memorandum analyzing Senator McCarthy's charges 
in four parts: 1* The McCarthy Charges in General* 2* The McCarthy 
Techniques and Methods* 3* ^fhe Effects of McCarthyism* 4* The Contradictions 
and Conflicts in the McCarthy Charges* 

Li The McCarthy Charges in General 

Various charges made by Senator McCarthy commencing with his speech 
at Wheeling, West Virginia, on February 9> 1950, are recounted, followed by 
the Committee's comments regarding refutation of such charges* It is noted 
that in a speech at Chicago on±.May 6, 1950, Senator McCarthy included an 
alleged statement by J* Edgar Hoover that the Amerasia case "is a 10fr»percent 
airtight case of espionage*" The Department of Justice denied, adds the 
Committee, that Mr* Hoover ever made such a statement* Before the Senate on 
June 6, 1950, Senator McCarthy charged that the FBI had sent to the State 
Department a chart listing tt agents," "Communists," "sympathizers" and "suspects, ' 
according to the report, which adds that no such chart had been prepared by the 
FBI but had been compiled by the State Department on May 15, 1946* 



40 






2« The McCarthy Techniques and Methods 

Under this heading the Committee describes Senator McCarthy^ 
most important and shocking technique as the sweeping accusation unwarranted 
by evidence • Listed thereafter are the multiple untruth, manufactured 
evidence, repetition, deliberate perpetuation of confusion, headline 
production and the "Yahoo 11 (anti-intellectual) appeal* The Committee sets 
forth considerable information in support of these appellations • 

3« The Effects of McCarthvism 

The effects *of any given technique, reports the Committee, may 
not in itself be serious and even the use of a number of them^ with some 
restraint— -may be considered a normal phenomenon in the world of practical 
affairs* When, however, these techniques £re used by a TMited States Senator 
under the circumstances of world crisis, and for the purpose of attacking 
the spokesman for the United States in the field of foreign affairs, the 
effects can be expected to be extremely serious* The Committee then 
declares Senator McCarthy's methods and techniques have undoubtedly confused 
our friends and heartened our enemies ; diverted the energies of the public 
and public officials; undermined the procedures of the U* S# Senate and 
democracy by fraudulent inducement of appointment of a special investigating 
conmiittee; demoralized public servants; and deprived individuals of legal 
redress by making unwarranted charges under cover of Congressional immunity* 

4* Contradictions and Conflicts in the McCarthy Charges 

Under this caption the Committee lists a large ntimber of charges 
by Senator McCarthy* and points out what it terms contradictions and conflicts* 



41 




m 



The Director 



July 11, 1950 



D. M. Ladd 

suBcaimnsB a? ihb sbb&ss forbigh 

ESLmOHB CCMOSTEE 

LOYAETI OF GOVEBHKBK EMPLOYEES 



PURPOSE 






To auhatit for your information the result* of a r*vi4W of the 
proposed report of the St&comnittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Com- 
mittee concerning information appearing therein which directly relates 
to the FBI or FBI personnel, and to also highlight comments of the Subcommittee. 

BACKGBQUHD 

At 4:50 FM ob July 10, 1950 , a copy of the proposed report of the 
Sutocawiitt»e of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was made available 
to tfce Bureau on a highly confidential basis, it being stipulated that no 
copies should be made nor any notations made thereon. 

This proposed report and the attached appendices (consisting ©f 
337 P«ge# in all) have been reviewed for information which directly relates 
to the FBI or FBI personnel, special emphasis having been placed on such 
information as reflects adversely on the Bureau. In iMM connection* however, 
it is noted that page slxfey-two of the proposed report, as submitted to the 
Bureau, was hissing and therefore could not be reviewed. 

In making this review, no atteagpt has been made to cca^are the 
co&clnaiomg set forth in the proposed report with the facte as contained 
in Bweaa files, and other than those which directly concern the Bureau 
no atteapt has baen made to establish the accuracy or inaccuracy of state- 
ments appearing therein* 

Generally, throughout the proposed report, references made to the 
FBI or FBI personnel are co«ienda*QiFy. The findings and conclusions of the 
Subcommittee aire generally f adorable to the individuals charged by Senator 
McCarthy, and no recommendations for dismissal are made. 

ACTION 



The attached memorandum is submitted for your information. 



TEtt&chaent 



- mS:EFF ADDENDUM - July 11* 1950 



J 



\\ 



xp 



Tour attention is particularly called to pa 

f : -/If 

r 



6 of tfc* 

* 7 * ■ 




<J 




* 



&r„ Toison 

Mr. E. A. TasiK 

Mr. Clegg ~ 

Ur/Glavln 

Mr. 'lAdd * 

Mr. NLchoTs 

Mr. Rosen 

w^. Trac y ^_ 

Ml . Egau" '_ 

Mr. Gm-nea 

Mr, KarDo 

la*. Molu* 

Mr. Farm lug ton 
MTi Quirin Tamm* 

Tele. Room " 

Mr. Neasa. 

JIIss Cfa/Jriy_ ^_ 

* 



e*tso&*g *#»ora*$d*t* wherein . ft «#t forth a *to$«**n* 
»i*& reference to McCarthy 9 s charge about the stripping 
of the Stat* Department's filss indicating that Hhe filss 
were reviewed by Agents of the FBI and the Department of 
Justice ******* This, of course, is incorrect* 



On pege 16 uf the attached memorandum* it is pointed 
put that the Department of Justice has advised the 
department of State that Mr* Hoover never made the widely 
public i sted statement that it was a one hundred per cent 
airtight case against the Amerasia defendants* This 
of course is an incorrect statement and while the Depart* 
ment has been advised of the inaccuracy of this, the 
Committee has not* 

On page $8 of this memorandum, it is noted that the 
letter from the Director to the State Department with 
reference to the chart prepared by Sam Klaus mas set 
forth in full* 

With reference to the Amerasia Case on page 30 of 
the attached memorandum* it is set forth that representative* 
of the Criminal Division conferred with FBI officials on 
the morning of September SB, 1945, and it &as generally 
agreed that the case mas in serious jeopardy* A number 
of suggestions mere Made and discarded* This leaves the 
erroneous impression that the Bureau might have concurred 
in the Deportment 9 s handling of the prosecution* 

It is pointed out that the full testimony of the 
Bureau f s representatives is not set forth in the report* 
Sxoerpts from the testimony are mentioned in the footnotes* 

It is noted that the question, which -as ?B in the 
testimony, &as changed* This question is quoted and reads 
n £as evidence sought and obtained by entering the apartment 
and premises of the accused without legal process and with- 
out the knowledge of the accused* H Mr* Nichols 9 answer 
was then quoted* 

The next question is worded *Vero these entries 
oftho premises before arre&ts made by the Agents without 
legal proce$s and without the knowledge of the subjects* 
The words ' surreptitiously " and "stsalthily" are not used. 



Jaly 11, 1950 



stats DBFABtwar mums, WTi&lt 

• mrnmmm — ! — 



REPORT 
of * 
SOSCCiaaTIES OF THE 

coatmm ok bhom beutions 

Pursuant to 

i nwaumas . ts itmsuokti milium m;m 
Amm&tsmzs nr tes state department 

SISIOY^L E> THE UNITED STATES 



* ' 1 



trnit of wmmm 



page number 



Introduc tion • # * • » * • • » * ♦ • • # * • • • » • » ♦ -• • # * • * • # 1,<£ 
Conception of the Subcosm&ttee * a Duty, *♦*.♦*♦♦♦..♦.. y . . 2 
Initial Phase of the Inquiry ♦ • . ♦ » ♦ * ♦'*■• # . . ; * ♦ ♦ . * ♦ # * ♦ 3 
The Story of the "81 Cases% • , ♦ '■•■■*'.* + .•*• ♦ * *'* f ..* * • • • • . ♦ . 3>4 

Review of loyalty' Files * *"* ♦ ♦ ; » '•>■•"• • ♦ • . * . • • • • • # • 5>6*7 

Problem Confronting the State Department 1945-4946 . >. f - • • • * *.•* • .'** 8 
Handling of the loyalty Program. * . • ..♦.....♦..*.. * ♦ ♦ 8»9 

the Cases of the Individuals Publicly Charged . # ♦ v * > » . ♦ . # * * 9 
"Mrs* Esther Caukin Brunauer » > , * . • .••*'• * '•".♦ *■*".'• ♦ * # ♦ • . 10 
Gustavo Duran * # v * » • • "'.> » » * *> * • .*-* • V • * • * * * » * 10,11 
Haldore uaneon » * * ♦ # # * • ♦ • ♦ > ♦ • > ♦ • • • * * * » f f • 12 
Philip C 9 Jessup • • • * • * * * • * » • .• » # ♦ • * • # * *'- * * ♦ 12,13 
Dorothy Kenyon • • . ♦ * . • . # ».«-«••« • * • . . . ♦ * * . '• 13 ' 
Owen Lattitaore * * ♦ • > » * • * • ♦ * • * • * * * • • • • • • • • 14—21 

Frederick L, Schuman , .* ♦ » 4 ..'*"♦ »••*•♦..♦*• . . . 22 
John Stewart Service '•> * ♦ ♦ ,**.»»*• .,;■> , . . # . # * ^ * 22-24 
Harlow Shapley ♦ ♦ w >* . * * ♦ * ♦ * v .♦ * • • . « + •»•.» * • * 24,25 
John Carter Vincent * • * . # ♦ * * > *'. • • . • ''«■»* ♦ * •- # * . 25, 
Charges ?51th Eeapect lo "FBI Ch^rt", • • ♦ ., > ♦*.•.#•♦...***.. 25,26 
Ameraeia Case. •.........*.♦.... * . # # « . . ^ # » # # 27^36 

The Sources of the Charges . ♦ \ * . * * • « * * . * ♦ * . . .. . # • ♦ .37 

l*e Fact© Behind the Charge of ^Whitewash" ♦ # .-, # # ♦ » . # # , . # # # 38,39 
General Observatione » ♦ • . •".■* • * • • * « # . . * •■.♦.'» • ♦ . • ♦ » . 39-41 




STATE SBPARTMENf EMPLOYES LQTAUY 

^immrmm • 



report 

of I 
SUBCOMMITTEE Of THE 
COmHTfU ON FOREIGH REUTXOUg 

pursuant to 
s. Rea* ;^& 

A RESOXSTIOJI TO BfifESTIGATI WH8KIEB f HERS 

ABE BlffLQIESg XK THE STATS laKAHTMEMT 

DISLOmL TO T» tBttTBD STATES 



Subcommittee on SeiHtte Beaolution 2J1 

ICtlARD E. fIDlKGB, Maryland, C&atoaan 
THEODORE PHANDIS OREEM, Rhode Island BQSRJDS 1. HICIMfLOOPER, low* 
HftlSN mHkmV, CoruHKrticut mmi CAJDT ICDOE, J*», itteeachusetts 

- Edward F* Morgan, Chief Counsel 

Robert L* Heald, Assistant Counsel 
Wllltia J» Klifta, Aasietant Counsel 
Robert Morris, Aaaiatanfc Oonrawl 
Zyon L. Tyler, Assistant Counsel 

IMTRODOCTIOH 

Under the introduction of this report, it le pointed out that on 
February 22, 19$0, the Senate adopted Resolution 231, authorising tod direct- 
ing the Senate Committee on Foreign Relatione, or any auboowraittee thereof, 
to conduct a full and ooaplete study and investigation tm to Pettier persons 
irho are disloyal to the United States are or have been employed fey the Depart- 
ment of State* The Ooarcittee was directed to report to the Senate at earlieat 
practicable date results of investigation and recoemondations. If reoo«Baenda^ 
tions incited formal chargea of disloyalty, the Cowaittee, before making 
recommendation *aa directed to give the individual open hearings f or porpoae 
of taking evidence or testimony. In the conduct of thia etudy and investigation, 
the Resolution directed the Committee to procure fey subpoena and examine complete 



♦ 



'-• 'f 



loyalty and ewployaent filea and recorde of eaployeea of State Bepartiwint 
and such other ageneiee againet who« charge* have been heard* 

Purauant to Raw* 231/ * suboowBittee of the Senate Foreign Relatione 
Committee, eonprtaed of Sanatory Tydinge (Chairman), Oraa^ - Selfehon, 
Hiokanlooper and I^ge^ w«r appointed to cooduct tha lawa«i*Moii» Beginning 
with public* he*^nge on Marsh 8 # 19#0? pubiie or executive heeringa *ara held 
©n 31 eubee<$uent diora, anding on ^fcily 7, ££$>*> during tha courao of which 31? 
witneaaea appeared* Additionally, a epeoial aubooomittea consisting of 
Senator* Green and Lodga intarr® gated a total of 3k witneaaea both in tha 
United States md abroad* 

The report callad attrition to tha cireiwetaiioea behind tfaa Reaoln* 
tion, referring to Senator McCarthy* a speech on February 9$ lf!^)| at Iheeling, 
Weat Virginia, when ha allegedly atatad that although ha could not taka tha 
tlwe to name all tha man in the State Department -who had bean naaad aa actlra 
mambere of tha Coawuniei Party ind mambere of a apy ring, ha had in hia hand a 
list of 1 05 namee that were made known to tha Secretary of Stata aa baing 
member* of tha Conmimiat Party and who neverthelaae wera atill worlds and 
ahaplng policy in tha State Department! further* that in an interview over * 
radio etation *t Salt Lake City, Utah, on February 10, !?$&, fcGirthy aa£*** 
*&aet night I diemieaed tha &owrc&lata in tha »tata Daparteant* I atitad I 
had tha name* of £? card carrying member* of tha Goaaa&tlat party** Conaiderabla 
attention i* diraetad to tha fact that tha wmkm md eharf^terlsation of 
Gommuniatfi in tha Stata Department had droppad w$r night from 205 '•naoad aa 
activa member* of tha Oommuniat party and member* of a apy ring* to tt 57 eard 
oarrying members of tha Coeaiiaaaiat party* 11 Tha report relate* that since 
Senator »© c arthy hii laft tha uiw&etakable inf arena* ha had recently obtained 
front unrevealed eourcea in tha Stata Department tha information ha waa preaant^ 
ing, daapita tha ineoniiatanoiaa apparent flrem tha outaat^ an immediate and 
thoroisgh i39^«atigation was naoaaaary* Aeeoixiingly^ Senate Baaolutioa tSl 
introduced igr Se&ater Scott W* Laoaa waa adopted* 

COmmVM OF THK 8tIBtX)lIlITfgi»S WfX 
(Pagaa h - 5J 

It la pointad out that Mb* 25% waa the rw«l* of Ife^arthy^a oharg*i 
and tha inquiry oontaaplatad utiliaatio^ of and darralepnerrt of information 
idjioh Mb6«artkgr had aaauarad ha had raoantly obtalnadj that tha Coamittaa h*& 
mt, convolved ita Amotion to be that of at$eroeding tha Pad^al Boroau of 
Imreatigattan in ita inraitigitlona of tha loyalty of Federal awployaaa or 
of tha HdEi»a Cosnmittaa on un-Ajn©rlcan 4otivitiaf * 



1 ':'■■ . . :„,! 



mmkL PHASE OF t HI tSQPIRf 

ps^snm 

According to the repeat , the firat witneee to appear before the 
eubeoa&ittee irae Senator McCarthy who* according to the report* had m 
evidence whatever to eubmit concerning the individual* diacuaaed by him 
previouely but ineiated the frtdenoo to eupport the charge* would be f ound 
in tha loyalty f ilea maintained in the Executive ft*aneh of tha Government* 
The report pointa out thia wee both intereatii^ tod significant iince it 
we* woU know** that under tha Preeident** Directive of Mweh 13 $ 191$ * tha 
ralaaaa of information developed concerning employees incident to tha 
Loyalty Program waa prohibited. Tha report atatad from tha wry outset 
tha subcommittee waa subjected by Senator McCarthy 3nd certain segments of 
tha press and radio to a campaign of villlficatien probacy ui^aralleled 
in tha history of ^ongresiionAl ii^reetigationAf that .tha ^warranted cry 
"whitewash* waa raited even baf ora tha hearit^ started and eqjually unf ai* 
and malicious allegations were made throughout tha proceedinga. 

THE STORY OF TH8 «81 CASKS* 
(Pages &*j$ 

Thia eectien of tha report refer* to tha investigation of 108 
loyalty file* of the State Department conducted in 19&7 by investigators 
for a subcommittee of the Btouae Committee on Appropriations in connection 
with the State Department's Appropriation M31 for I9l*8 # It points out that 
a ca§e by cage analysis by the T$rdingf Subcommittee of the 81 Caeee referred * 
to fcy Senator McCarthy on February 20* 195>0* revealed that all 81 cMee were 
included in the *108 list 11 1 that language employed toy Senator McCarthy in 
hie "81 Cases* ia similar textually to the language uaed in the counterpart 
cases appealing in the "10S list 11 ! that where varlalAona in the caee deacrip* 
tlone uaed by Senator McCarthy occter* the language had been changed by Senator 
McCarthy to create a more sinister impression and where he changed the facta 
in the case descriptions he had changed them to create woree impressions* The 
report further pointa out that a review of the 108 memoranda prepared by the 
Houe a investigators in %9h7 ahowi that they were limited to derogatory informs** 
tion appearing in the files without reference to information tending to disprove 
allegations and did not appear to be concerned with the merite of the caaea 
but deelt merely with the basis for or inadequacy of the investigations* 

The report comments that Senator McCarthy** epeech before the Senate 
on February 20 f 19$D 5 constituted a perversion oompouraled of the State Depart* 
mestt*e loyalty filei in terms of the situation that prevailed not in 1950 but 
beck in 19ltf and that Senator McCarthy had received no undercover Information 
from *leyal M or *diatnrbed* State Department employee* ae he led the Senate 
to believe but hia information waa beyond all reasonable doubt a "dressed up 11 
vera ion of material developed by the 80th Congress* 




r^'.^vv:-?: '^M^-^^t^^r^ 



fite fydiaga Coiassittee report hri&ga out that it w&e confronted 
with the annoying epectaela of foyr different ooiaaitteee of the 80th ' 
Congress* which WMcorrbrolled by Senator Mo c arthy*a own farty* having 
coneidered the irory $mm fi&ea and information which provided the predicate 
for the McCarthy charges , with none of theae oommitteee eo *uch m regard** 
ing the eituation ia one meriting it report for citing a aingle State Bepirfeaant 
employee as dialeya3U The f ow cowsitteea of the SGth Congree* referred to 
are apecified aa feeing the auhoetiuslttee of the ffouee l^prepriationa Coi»mittee| 
80th Congraea nfcich originally considered the Hat of ^108 eaaas** a eub* 
co«e&ttee of the Hte?uee ie&aittee on S^endituree in t&e &cacutive fief artwenfce 
which held hearL*$ge in March, 191$ § regarding handling of loyalty oaaae fcy 
the State Xtepartmentj m *Ooiaffiittee of (ma 1 * (Bepraaantativa Bartel JU 3m&mm $ 
Republican, Michigan) who' made a probe into State Department eecurity and 
reputed thereon to the Hemaa on August f f %9hB 9 and a eubeoae&ttee of tJNI 
Senate Appropriationa Co»mittae> 80th Oongreae which, being cognisant of 
the memoranda of the *108 Caaee* had mxm&md Secretary of State George C» 
Marshall regarding the State B^arfea©^ a loyalty pi^graai* 

Mention is made e£ the fact that !&*• ilohn !• Bettrifoy of the State 
Departments in testifying regarding the *108 Cases* hefore the auhc^oaittee 
of the Ifctiae Coteaittee on Kxpenditviree im Executive Departmental 80th 
Congress* pointed out that only 5? of the 108 individuals were then eoployed 
in the State Beparfwiiit* From thia i&s fydinge Subcommittee states that it 
ia clear Senator ifeCarthy*a reference to *57 card*cwrying meaibers of the 
CoMK^dat Birty* itaa actually a reference to the $1 State Department employee* 
mentioned by Ifc% fteurifey* 



4 



RffffBir OF V$$lt% y £135$ 
(Ifcgea 9 to 12) .^ 

fi* this section of the report, mention la made of the review 
of the f Hoe concerning the individuals charged by Senator McCarthy in 
hid speech before the Senate on February 20, 1950, made by members of the 
fording* Subcommittee at the White House* It la pointed out that in 
reviewing the files the Gojaaittee members recognised that they sat in 
judgwmt on the work of the ntt, the State Department Security Staff, the 
State Department loyalty and Security Board and in some instances the 
ftresldent^s X^yalty Review Board, representatives of which agencies had 
previously appeared bef ore the Coaaadttee and impressed the Committee with 
their background, character, integrity* *&<* manifest patriotisms that to assume 
any one of these representatives would have been a part to or haveoouritenanced 
in any w*y harboring in the State Department of persons disloyal to the 
Waited States would not only have been absurd but unwarranted* However, the 
Committee was also mindful of the charge implicit in Senator McCarthy •« 
allegations that an individual or individuals responsible for ferreting 
out disloyal employees, deliberately or otherwise, failed to perform his 
or their official duties* the Committee also realised that the officials 
responsible for making a determination of an employees loyalty Were in a 
much more favorable position to sake such a determination and the function 
of the Committee was properly that of passing judgment on an administrative 
finding not unlike the function of an appellate court* A third consideration 
of the Committee in reviewing these files was the standards and Criteria laid 
down under the loyalty Program* 

^he following quoted comments of the Committee as they appear in 
its report Illustrate the general findings of the Committee as a result of 
Its review of the files in question and also illustrate comments of interest 
s^ado by the Committer and pertinent references to the FIX: 

"With the foregoing considerations in mind, we have carefully 
and conscientiously reviewed each and every one of the 
Icyalty files relative to the individuals charged by 
Senator McCarthy* In no instance was any one of them now 
employed in the State Department found to be a 'card carrying 
Communist, • a member of the Communist fttrty or * loyal to the 
Communist R*rty*» Furthexiaore, in no instance have we found 



"In our considered $udg»ant that tha decision to grant 
loyalty or/and security clearance has been erroneously or 
ij^operly made in the light of eadsting loyalty standards** 

•♦What 1^0 have found hare been aeticulous and eoagprehenaive 
investigations conducted by the PHC. These investigations 
have bean eadiaustive and provide* in ao far aa humanly 
passible* a thorough going eacploratlen of every avenue 
through iihieh an employee* s background and loyalty may be 
pursued and detemined* The files reflect a siailar 
thoroughness on the part of the State Dapartaei&>a Security 
Staff* libera loyalty hearings hwe been involved* the 
proceedings hare bean pertinent and wfflprehensivs in 
contemplation of the issue* involved** 

*lfa are fully satisfied* therefore* cm the basis of our 
atudy of the loyalty files* that the Stata Departaisnt has 
not knoatngly retained* in ita espley* individuals aho have 
been disloyal** 



tr What the State Depsartasnt knows concerning m employee* a 
loyalty is to be found in ita loyalty and aecurity filea* 
fheae film oontiln all inforaatlon bearing on loyalty* 
obtained from i&gr and all sources* including* of course* the 
report* of full field investigation by the fW* Interestingly* 
in this regard* no sooner had tha President indicated that 
the files would be available for raview fey the Subcommittee 
than Senator McCarthy charged they were being *r*ped $ * altered* 
or otherwise subjected to a *houaeclesning«* this charge was 
found to be utterly without foundation in fact. The files 
were reviewad by Agentg of the FBI tod the DepartnritoJ' Justice 
haa testified that all itiforaation bearing on tha employee's loyadty, 
p daWbped to the m* appears ik the fllee ehich Wi4 renewed 
to t he gubcomaat tea? 1 (The undarllning has bean ed<&d to higt^ 
il$v& this partic&lsr coaroiA aa it appears in the tydlngs 
Report* since the comment implies that Bureau Agents actually 
revisited tha files of the State Department on the individuals 
involved for the purpeaa of aeeertalning whether they were 
complete. We, of course* did not review the State Department 



f Hee for this purpose Out did make * review of the Bureau's 
file* for ths purpees of furnishing to the Attorney General 
a brief specifying Bureau correspondence whereby information 
oo&eeraing these individuals hid bees furnished te the State 
Depwtaent end the Civil. Service Commission. Thie brief was 
requested by Mr* feyton Ford to assist the Attorney General 
In preparing a letter addressed to the fydings Suboowaittee* 
concerning the oases named on '* *8ubp#ene list 1 * received by 
the Justice Department ffcom the Tydinga Subcommittee* It is 
interesting to note that the Tydlmge report footnotes the 
comment undsrlinad Ibove by referring to a letter from the 
Department of Justice dated *7one M* 1?S0* "printed In the 
record**) 

*¥he most amasing thing in connection with our review of the 
loyalty files mie available to us by the President is the 
fftit that Senator Rtckenlooper read oti3y 9 of the fllei end 
Senator Lodg* X8« Dei^pitei ther^Poare^ the olamosr and demand 
that was raised by Senator MeCarthy, along with his associates* 
and the assertion thit the loyalty files would * prove his case*' 
we find the most unbelievable situation of the members of 
Senator lfaCartfey*s owe Party on w Subcoundttee tsi&ng the 
trouble to read only a vesy small percentage of the files made 
available for these examinations by the President** 

♦•Our review of the files reveals to us the value and necessity 
of the toyaity Program..,* Ha fuHy endorse the Program and 
feel thst the necessity for' perennial vigilance to prevent the 
penetration of our Government by those who would subvert and 
destroy it is of paramount importance* »*• The Job is om to be 
performed la a quiet* sober t intelligent manner by those trained 
and conpetent for the task* Ife beilev* that in the TBI em 
Government has the finest investigative organisation in the 
world under one of the moat eminent end capable career public 
servants in this or toy other generation* Mr* J* Idgsr ttoovsis 
^hey possess ths ability in a quiet and unobtrusive manner to 
gather the facts concerning the loyi&ty of Federal employees 
and to keep abreast of end forestall the eonetant efforts of 
our enemies to place their minions in the Government service. 
Of thia we are fully satieflsd* Additionally f we have found y 
$m heretofore suggested, no instance where officials in the State 
Department * charged with responsibility for taking action on the 
basis of disloyalty^ have f idled to do so where the facts si 
developed by the PMC have revealed evidence of a *£ype and character 
warranting a finding of disloyalty or security risk under the 
standards which hsve been laid down for their guidance* 11 



r 



H tOBLEM GOHIRONTINg 1HB ST ATS D BPARTMEirT I I 3.945 ~ 1946 

— , , — (Fkgsg ia 4 16} ; — * 

This Motion of the report refers to the fact that ia order 
to appreciate the problem of security in the State Department and 
the true source of the charge* that have been made, it ie necessary 
to consider the situation with which the State Department was eon* 
fronted in lete 1945 and early 1946 following the end of hostilities. 
Brief ly, it is pointed out that various emergency agencies were 
established during the war which employed some individuals whose 
connection in a Communist sense would bar them from employment today* 
that there was a shortage of civilian personnel during the war and it 
was impossible to oonduot adequate investigation of a great number of 
employ eee ; that the Soviet Onion wae our ally during the war but at the 
end of hostilities it become apparent the Soviet Union did not contemplate 
co-operation and friendly relations with democratic countries and that 
employees having Communist complexions who were tolerated where necessity 
required during the war had to be removed from Federal Service • It 
is pointed out that by various executive orders ia late 1945 and early 
1946, 12*797 employees of emergency war agencies (OSS, OWl f F£A) were 
transferred to the State Department and a screening committee established 
by the State Department te cull cut the "rotten apple*** The report quotes 
a statement on this entire problem submitted by the State Department 
showing the action taken with respect thereto* The Tydings Subcommittee 
comments that it is fully satisfied the State Department handled the 
inordinate personnel problem incident to the transfer of over 12,000 
employee* of other agencies in a capable manner and that every effort 
had been made to weed out disloyal employees • 

HASDLIIG OF BJK LOYALTY PROGRAM 
' (Ikges 18 * »> 



This section of the report is a discussion of the organisation, 
personnel and procedures of the State Department, the Loyalty Security 
Board of the State Department, and the Presidents Loyalty Sevier 
Board, The procedures for handling of applicants and incumbents under 
the Loyalty Program and the summary dismissal power of the State 
Department provided by the McOarran Rider are discussed together with the 
standards applicable to each of these authorities* It is the conclusion 
©f the Tydings Subcommittee that the Loyalty and Security Program of the 
State Department is being administered efficiently, fairly, end in the 
best interests of the government* The Subcommittee comments that in one 
respect the handling of applicants may be improved in that an applicant 



.8 



is actually sworn in as an employee prior to a preliminary cheek 
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation* If this check reveals 
disloyal information the State Department must then report to th© 
full procedure under the loyalty Program, whereas if made prior to 
employment and derogatory data ie developed the State Department could 
then deny the application outright* -A ooidae&t is alee Made by the 
Subcommittee that It feel a the Loyalty Program in its entirety warrants 
study to determine whether it ie deficient in that it recognises only 
the .disloyal standard* 

gROBIfflt OF STAf S DgPAR MBHT SECURITY 
'(fttge 2^)' ~ 

Thie section of the report merely refer* to a study made by 
Senators Orson and Jjodge, regarding the State Department's peculiar ... 
problem of security in view of the global disposition 6f its 
employee^ activities snd installations* 

THB CASBS OF THE IHDIYIOUALS PPBUOLY OHARqg) 
(*agesi6 - to) " 

This section of the report i* devoted to a discussion of 
individuals charged publicly by Se«*tor McCarthy which will be dfcalt r 
with individually hereafter* In addition, mention is smde of the *Three 
Sig Coisswists 1 * mentioned by Senator McCarthy on February 80 » I960, as 
being cases No# 1 (Herbert Abner Fierst), Ho. t (John Carter Vincent), 
and Ho* 8l (Ruby Parson}* The Committee points out it has reviewed the 
loyalty files on these three oases and found nothing to sustain Senator 
McCarthy^ assertion they are *big Communists,* or of "tremendoup 
importance and of great value to Russia," or are a part of an "espionage 
ring in the State Department. " It is pointed out that tfee individual involved 
in case He* 81 (Ruby Parson) resigned from the State Department on 
April S, 1948* ■.,-. 

Reference is also made to case Ho, SS (Richard Howell Post) 
described by Senator McCarthy as one of fee afcost dangerous Communists in 
the State Department and ease Ho* 87 (Fred Warner leal) concerning whom 
Senator McCarthy urged immediate action* The Committee points out that 
Ne* 55 resigned from the State Department on December SO, 1948, and 
Ho, 57 resigned March 12, 1948. The Gonsnittee thereafter cites the 
above as. illustrative of the reckless and irresponsible treatment of the 
facts by Senator McCarthy, 

Set forth hereafter are the individual oases described in the 
Subeoamittee report i 



MRS* ESTHER CAUKIH BRUNAUER 
(ffeges 26-29) 

The SubedBBi&ttee found that lira. Brunauer was a member of one 
organisation cited as a Communist front "and that in 1934 «*d 1936, owrU 
years ago> she participated in two meetings sponsored by a pro~Soviet organi- 
sation of which she was not a member* 11 The conclusion was reached that there 
is no evidence that Ift*s* Brunauer is disloyal, a Communist sympathiser or a 

security risk* 

_■'-•.* f. ■ . . 

OOSTAVO DURAM 
(Bags 30) 

Senator McCarthy charged that Duran was wi^KL known for his rabid 
Oosffliunist beliefs and activities and was active in secret Soviet operations 
in the Spanish Republican Army* the Qoooittee did not discuss Duran in the 
body of its report because of the fact that his. employment with the State 
Bepartmnt ceased before the loyalty Program was Instituted* 

fhe charges against Duran and his replies were set forth in Appendix 9 c 

APPBtDH 9 

ffA9E0yG^AVPP 
(E*gee 182-187) 

Duran submitted a "Memorandum to Senator Tydings,* dated Jftrch 30, 
1950, setting forth his answers to Senator McCarthy^ charges* deferring to the 
Spanish newspaper ARIBBA, which he claims was the indirect source of some of the 
Senator *e allegations, he notes that it erroneously reported that he came to 
Madrid "for the first time in the 192Q«a from the Canary Islands** Duran notes 
he was born in Barcelona, Spain, end resided continuously with his family in 
Madrid from 1910 until 1929* Duran writes* 

"The Federal Bureau of Investigation has in its files a list 
of the various domiciles of my family* This information which 
was provided by me, can be easily checked** 

The foregoing is substantially correct* When interviewed by Mr* Ladd 
on April 29, 1946, he furnished biographical data concerning hie parents and 
himself , and set forth their domiciles as well as those of his own which he could 
recall* 

His attorneys, Baldwin, Todd it Lsfferts, also forwarded the Director, 
under date of April 17, 1950, a complete biographical sketch* i 



in 



X. 



With deference to Senator McCarthy^ charges that Indalecio Prleto, 
former. Minis ter of Defense for the Spanish Republican Cabinet, in his pamphlet, 
*Why and How I Left the Ministry," described Duran as an agent of the Secret 
Buseian Police or a member of the Comintern^ Duran writes: 

"Subsequently* tit? Prieto stated to Messr*. Robert Wilson 
Wall, Jr* and Robort Godfrey, Attala to the American Embassy 
at Mexico City, tWlt^W-ftlh appointed me as head of the Madrid 
Zone of the Military Inteliigence K Servic6 (SIM) at the 
proposal of General Wiaja, then Commander of the Awy of 
Madrid j he then reiterated that he (ftrieto), like others in 
the Government who were equally hostile .to Communism, had been 
subjected to Ccmsminist pressures* * 

Actually^ IRrieto said considerably more than Buran noted • When 
interviewed by Special Agents Wall and Godfrey, he stated that he did not know 
him prior to the appointment but that because Miaja, who was himself closely associ- 
ated with the CoBsaunist Barty and Soviet interests in Spain, had recommended 
hiM/Tie assumed that Duran was a Gonaauniet* Prieto said he had no proof of 
this nor of any allegation that Duran was or had been an agent of the Soviet 
Union* He believed Duran had been subjected to considerable Cosmiunist pressure, 
as were all members of the Spanish Government* 



11 



r 



HALDORB HOSOy 
(Pages SO m 37) 

Hansom is the individual whom Senator McCarthy described as having 
a mission to commumise the world • Louis Sudsntr testified he knew flan* on, 
from official records to be a member of the Communist fturty* Budens* infor- 
mation was baeed, according to his testimony, on oral information ree erred 
in 1940 and 1941* Budens thought Jack Staehel gave him Hanson's name# 
Budens testified that the first time he had indicated to anyone that Hanson 
had ever been reported to him as a Communist was a week prior to his 
testimony on April 85, 1950, when he gare Banson*s name, among others, to 
the FBX* Hanson declared he Has given a complete olearanoe by the Department 
of State following a comprehensive investigation by the II J under the 
Loyalty Program* He testified on March 28, I960, he thought subversives 
oould be ferreted out by the quiet, sober, thorough methods now used by' the 
TBI* 

the Committee stated it was ol ear that (l) Hanson was not t as 
claimed by Senator McCarthy, "one of the most strategically important 
officers in the entire State Department n i (2) that Hanson would not, as 
alleged by Senator McCarthy, head a program charged with expending hundreds 
of millions of dollars; and, (S) that information used by Senator McCarthy 
to uphold his allegations of pro-Ooasauniam against Hanson failed in 
credibility, relevancy, and competency* The testimony of Budens left the 
Committee "tfNii degree, in wonderment ♦* In the face of the results of the 
FBI investigation, action of the Loyalty Board and the evidenoe presented* 
the Committee could not accept Budens* testimony as controlling* 

PHILIP C« JSSSUP 
(Pages 37 -43) 

The Cemittee sets forth the allegations made against Dr. Jessup by 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in support of his general charge that Dr* Jessup 
possessed "an unusual affinity for Communist causes, * end then proceed to show 
how Senator McCarthy had failed to substantiate the allegations* 

It is noted that the Committee *§ report states that "we have mmu 
the loyalty file concerning Dr» Je»»«P which reflects no basis for considering 
him disloyal or a security risk*" Actually* the Bureau's reports reflect the 
following concerning Dr* Jessups 

1. He was one of the Sponsors for a dinner held by the 
American Russian Institute in NewYork in 1946% 



1? 



r 



2% Inforaation from a reliable infornent to the effeot that 

in 1941 Jessup f s name appeared on a list of names Maintained 
in the Headquarter* of the national Federation For 
Constitutional liberties* 

5* That Dr. Jessup was a signer of a call for * ^Rational 
Emergency Conference * in Washington, D» Q # ia 1959* 

4. That he was a member of the Board of Sponsors of the 
"National Emergency Conference for Desiocratic Rights 11 
in 1940. 

6« That he was Faculty Advisor of the rt A«*r loan Law Students 
Association, * while at Columbia University* 

6. That his wife was a member of the China Aid Council* 

7* That he was a member sind an officer of the Institute of 
Pacific Relatione* 

Senator McCarthy^ charges included the above points, and the Committee's 
report takes up each, concluding that "the true facts, therefore, are that 
Dr* Jessup was shown to have been associated with only two organisations, in 
both cases prior to the date they were cited as Communist fronts •* The Committee 
concluded that "the facts before us f*ii completely to establish that Philip C* 
Jessup has f an unusual affinity for Communist causes* and that the Subcommittee 
felt that the accusations mads against Dr# Philip C# Jessup are completely 
unfounded sad unjustified, and have done irreparable ham to the prestige of the 
United States ■*" 

DOROTHY KEKYOlt 
(Bigas 45 - 48 J 

With reference to Xenyon, the report set forth the admitted 
affiliations of Miss lenyon, the affiliations of Miss lenyon not denied, 
other alleged connections of Kiss Kenyan, other evidence, and concluded 
with the statement that the evidence before the Subcommittee failed to 
establish that Dorothy Kenyon is a Coxmunlst or an otherwise disloyal person* 



13 



r 



(Pages WW 5 

She Committee predicates this section of the report (pages 48 
to 7U> witfe the statement that although ©wen Lattinore was sot as employee 
of the State Bqpartatat In real or proper a as**, inquiry was mads oa the 
basis of the charge that he was the "architect of om Far lestera policy.* 
Thereafter , Senator Joseph McCarthy's charges against Lattinore are re* 
viewed and portions of the testimony tending to substantiate or refute 
those statements are coanasnted upon. In their consideration of snek 
testimony, the CcemtLttee finds generally that the charges of Senator 
McCarthy against Jfc\ Lattimore are unsupported in fact and wlads ^p with, 
the comment, *We believe that the Lattimore caae vividly illustrates the 
danger of promiscuous and specious attacks v&tm private citizens and their 
views, and the imperative necessity that inqniriee relating to natters of 
such character, where deemed relevant to oar national security, should be 
handled by the duly constituted agencies of onr government that are 
equipped to handle such matters by intelligent and proven methods designed 
to obtain the truth without injustice, character assassination, and a 
prostitution of the American concept of fair play, . ♦ ** 



Fege 50— — -"McCarthy insisted that information concerning Lattiaore 
in the FBI files would ahow *in detail not the caae merely 
of a man 1*0 appears to favor ftassie, not the case of a 
who night disagree with what wet think about Russia, but a 
1*0 is definitely an espionage agent. * . • 



*fhe foregoing assertion had to be taken by us at the 
outset with the proverbial 'grain of salt*; for if the FBI 
had evidence that Lattimore was a top Russian spy* either 
the FBI was derelict (which we do not believe) in not prose- 
cuting hi*, or Senator McCarthy was compromising an III 
investigation ^&ch might result in i^oeecutioa.* 

lit* reference to possible dereliction by the Bureau for not 
prosecuting Lattinore, this is erroneous inasauch as the enaction of 
prosecution is not one within the Bureau's province. 



Page J* — "rather Kearney was interviewed by the FBI and advised 

that he ted no direct knowledge of Mr. lattlaare's activities 
and that the principal source of his information had been 



wmtWF 



Alfred Koblberg of the itaeri€aa-«Chiaa Policy Association 
of Wot York City. (Footnote*— A letter fro* the Bqpartaeat 
of Justice coaf irsitag this statemat will be foiled in the 
subcommittee *s record. )* 

This is as accurate tbotigh partial statement of the inf oraatioa 
given by Father Jaaes F. Xearaey shea interviewed by Bureau Ageate oa 
Jsauary 20, I95CK 

(Brief, page 16; 100-2*628-80} 



Pages 56-57— la coaaenting oa the testtsoay of Louis Buderc, the 

report coateiBS the statsasat, *fike sufccoaeittee also notes 
that only siaee this investigation sad the publicity coa- 
eeraisg Lattiaore in coaaectioa therewith has Budeax given 
laforaaiioa t© the FBI concerning La tt lucre, even though 
Budeax has beea reporting for several years to the FBI og 

various Coaaunist activities aad personalties Similarly 

i& the case of Isidore SaBSoa, Budeaz edaitted that iaaeea 
*a» aaaed by him as a Ccwunist for the first tiro during 
the course ef our proceedings.* 

fhis is ea aecurate steteaeat, oa April 15, 1950, Louis Budeaz 
advlsiag that he had aever aeatloaed to the Bureau Tibet he kaa* about 
Lattiaore prior to larch 27> 1950* because his inf oraatioa was "fliasy* 
and *aot legal 11 and ha had devoted aost of his tiae to fumisMng legal 
evideace, <100-2li628~725,727} 



Pages 66-67— W A suaasry of the files of the FBI pertaining to Qnea 

Lattiaoare, prepared hy that organization, vas Bade available 
to aembers of the si&couslttee for reviev. Whereas this 
suaaary iaiiceted fcattiMre's association sad coatact nith 
aoee individuals of kaofca and alleged Coaaunist aaft pro- 
Coaawlst view, there was ao evidence therein proving 
Lefetfaeare hlaself to he a mm of wilful pre^awaaist 
actions or rUvs, the evidence did not show hia to he *a 
top Soviet espionage agent 1 or a aeafoer of the Coaaunist 
Farty car Caawuiist under ground. the iaforaation coaceraiiig 
Lattiaore, testified to by Louis Budenz, wae aot in the 
possession of the FBI, according to Budeaz* own testiaony, 
*t the tlae aeabers of this subcoaaittee reviewed the 



. 15 



r 



**!Qje foregeisg tisowiiaa of tfce iaforaatioa available 
to us {tMe ptoaaro ai&ea?#&tly iacliadea inforaatioB set 
• forth i» the ^ t , .,.„, 

that *♦ I*atti*ore was *<*m of the tc^ C«BwaS»t.ajg»t!».*' f * 

3&ia atatsaeat ia jnieleaaiag i& thai it does aot properly reflect 
the iaf eraatioa aade available to «eabers of the as^owaitte** On March 
23* 1950* tfeire wa* delivered to Jir* CUw IWaiW, of It* «riiibe«a Mvieioii, 
a Maovwdu* to Hr, feytofc Ford, dated March 22, 1950> *ith which was trans- 
mitted an eleven-page suiary aeaoraadua on Oeeii LettJaore. IBSSs *»aoraaduii 
was displayed to makers of the «*&coaB&ittee . It costained biographical 
inf oraatioa coaceraing Oven Lattlaare, a& nail as iaforaitioit ctaaceriiJUag 
his association with the State Bepartwat and the lotted BatioBS. She 
memorandum alao referred to reporte firm vmtvm toureei indicating 
litfciaore** alleged iiq?lication ia Soviet iateHlgMce activities* la 
this coa^ctioiifr h$«ever, it was noted tha$ although an extensive iave#~ 
tigation had heea conducted betveen March 19*9 and *&» date of the 
nemoraad**, ao iasiglble evidence had been imcovarad to* csrroboml&e the 
allegation* or to indicate that lie was iBTolvad in Soviet eaptooage activity* 
Tbe wmmm&m **&* mfibmmm to it nuafcer of allegation* concerning 
Latttaore,, indicating his reported affiliation with C«aw»iat-froat grofcge* 
partieipattea im 0e«wii&itH^OTaored activity/ and association with %wwra 
or enspeeted Ceranaaiat Batty »eB&ers and iiiiivMw*ls sospected of haviag 
acted as Soviet aeemts. <10G^46@8^a&) 



tage 68--^~^*esia$or JtcCartliy s^N> »«M this; .«» . •!* will fee r*^ 
c*Ued that J. l&gar loover at the Mae a*i& this waa a 
*l©H^eeat ^ 

their co-defeadaats •"*.... The Department of Justice has 
.' advised the Departmat of State that Mr. .Beovsr neve? aade 
. the widely pa»riicfc*i statement that tfesre *a* a , 10a-tereent 
airtight case* against tbe Aa^rasia defeadaata- (Footnote— 
S&ie letter will be f oiaai pointed in the a*tecoffl*ittee 
. record.)* 

la this connection, hy l i eao ra n i w dated Key 23, 1950, yW protested 
against such »e of yoar mm? particw&ai&y iflw^a tSiat «e did sot acswately 
reflect yowr views, for the iaf oawatioa of the Attaraey Geaeral, yoa poia^d 
out t3m% ob April 18, 1950* J«*» Ste«»t Service, «e of t^e #i&Jecta ia 
t&at iBveati8a^l«^ f had aaked if ym he4 aade a p^lic etatepfe&t to ttie 



16 



r 



effect that the case egeinat fctm was « huoired per ceat airtight* aadefr 
date of April 18, 1950* y« edriaed Mr, Service that ycm had md& oa© 
public statement cm the Jtataraei* caft* aiace tfce period *bereia the arresta 
ocean*** aad pointed oat t© h3te that the fSI did not pas* oa the evidence 
it collected tert»g it* t»ir«itlfi^tioi» fcxtt that ancfa eTideace w turned 
c*r*r to the Criminal BlTlftioa of th* Departaeat of Jteatie*. Ton adviaed 
Jfr. Service, *I preatase that t&ey (aaaatag the Criaiael Division of the 
Depertaeat) aa*t tav* fcaaa satisfied vith the evldeac* presented to tfeus 
by the FBI as they authorized the arrests to be aade in tfai* ett«/ 

Xc*u also pointed oat to the Attorney General that o» May 4, 
195©> yoi* had lEtforaed Mr. FeytoB Ford that you could sot as#ro*e hi* 
prcposed anroer (snfc#e<it»atly released fey the Itepertaest of State) to 
an inquiry oa May 1> 1950* ftwai Mr. Jobo &* Pewifoy, of the Bepertaeat 
$f State, aft to whet&er yo* had pi*liely stated that the case *as a 
tenured per ceat airtight. Xoa advised tfee Attorney Geaeral that in ?wr 
coMwnlcatioB of May k, 1950* *s Mr* leytoa Jord, y©*t pointed out that 
la the e*ent y©& ted feeaa aaked a* the tine the arraets were aad* *beti*r 
youi thought He had as airtight ca*e* ycm *o*ld haw stated that yen 
thought ins bad, and that if asked today you wosld haw to so atate. 



IT 



r 



Pagaa 68-d£~ <»*&ai**tor McCarthy alio aaid taiat 

w « I hair* another ateatatteat ahioh I had a groat daal of 
difficulty gatting, I had no difficulty ofataiain^ tha infor- 
mation f rooa thia man, but ha was extraaaly reluctant to sign 
a atataaoaek, foariAg that hia job might fo« anda&gorad if ha 
did ao« • • • • 

* f Ha gaYo.hia ooHimt to hia turn* m& thia atataaaat baiag 
giraa to tha fBI* la had to pro»i#a hia, hofwrtar, that hit 
game aoald not ba givan to thia oosalttea.»»«« 

*«thaa 1 hata aaothar ttateaaxtt gottaa u&dor alaoet tha 
aa&a airsu**tanoa«, ahioh la boing towiad oirar to tha Buraatt...*. 1 

*1S*a Dapartaa&t of Juatioa f&rftiahad tha following information 
ooacorning tha Jam i IMS saaatiug at Lattlaora'a boota to tiiiok 
Sanator ilaCarthy rafarrad. 1 * (Dboraaftor tha raport aat forth 
information obtained froA.tfa* Dapartatent of Juotioa eonearniag 
tha two atataaa&tft). 

la rofarring to tha ***tiag at Lattiaoro't he** oa Juaa 
2, 1M>, tha r «f art atataas 

*Iha FBI found no arldanoa daring itt *o*t thorough inwotiga- 
tioa of tha tear as ia aaw to indiaata that any Sovarnaant docuaant* 
aara inrolrad in thia iaeidaaV* 

Cm March 50, 19b0, Saaator 4oCarthy funatitaod to tho Buraau a 
t*o~paga, handwritten, algaod atata&ont datod Saroh ?8, I960, unattaatad, 
of ilbarta S. Cartor a»d a o^^paga, ha*d*rttt*a, oigoad atataaaat, undatad 
and u&attaatod, of her biiabaad, Oaorga F. Cartor, a Prof aaaor at Johzta 
Hopkima Uaiwaity, Baltimore Maryland* fha at*t**tat of Ooorga ?• Cartor 
appaara to bt an addandua to tha otataaaat of Aibarta ft. Cartar and both 
•tatajianta aat forth information oonc# ruing tha ri«it of tha Cartaro at 
tha noma of Gwoa Lattiaora in "Juno, IMS* ahoa Jtoba B. Sarrioa and Ueutanant 
Andraw «oth urara alaa praaeut. tha remark* of Sanator McCarthy ooncorning 
tha acquisition of thaoa atatamanta tendad t$ oonvay tha arroaaoua Impraaaioa 



Tolson. 
Ladd 



Clegg 

OXavln_ 
mchols_ 

Rosen 

Tracy 

Harbo 

Bohr 



Tele. Room_ 
Neas e 

oani*y 



18 



that tha lafoaaatioa aabodiad tharal&aaa firat aaqulrad by his at that tiM* 
In fact, ob February 9, I960, Oaor^a F. Cartar aaa iatorviaaad by Buraaa 
rapraaaatatiiraa, at whioh tiaa h« fiirnlahad information la ooaaldarabla datall 
ooaoaraiag Oaaa S*ttiaora a* nail an dat&ilad information ooaaaraiag tha 
Cartars' ^Uftiay aftaraooa riait ia Musio, 1945* at tha horn* of Lattimora mhaa 
John S, BaHlaa aad Liautoaaat Aadraw fiotk mora alia praaaafc. On tha 
occasion of thl* lat*? Yiaw, Oaarga F, Cartar axhibltad a williognoaa to 
aaaiat in aay way that ha oould though ha aada tha raquaat that hit identity 
^a kapt ooftfldaatial. (lQ0-Utt8-»lftB) . 

On April 9, I960, Mra. Oaorga F, C»rttr m iatarriawad by Suraau 
rapraaaatatlv*% at which tiaa aha oould add ao information of ralua aoaoaraiag 
tha *Juaa, 1945" riait at tho Lattlaora hoae to that which had boon furniahad 
by har Husband on Fabruary 9, 1960. (100-24628*528) 



Paga 70-*——*- *$oaator MoCarthy also rafarrad to aa affidavit coloring taatlmooy 
mnioh could bo g£**& by a formar gaaaral la tfea Rod Amy««*«« »ta 
affidavit waa turaad o*ar to tha FBI by Boaator tloCart&y. tha 
DoparWat af Juatioa haa adhriaad, with rmt*r*m* to thia, la tha 
folla*i*g tamat ,.»••* (thoroaftor waa a at forth iaformatioa 
^purpartad* to hawa baea givaa by tha formar gaaaral ia tha Bad 
*ra> ^* *& lirraatlgator for £>eaator McCarthy). 

Oa Marah -90, 1980, Sanator McCarthy faraiahad to tha Bureau a 
dooaaaafc aatltlad* "Bcpaotad Taatlaoay froaa Alaxaadar Baraiaa* raf loot lug 
that whlla ha waa a gaaaral la tha ftad Army and la Moaoaw, ho laaraed from 
*0aaaral Baraia,* a high official la Soiriat Xafcalligaaoa, that ^xcllont 
aueaaaa hiul baaa obtained throuffr tha Xa&tltuta of Fasific HoUiiooa whioh 
tho SoTiot latalllgaaoa* trough Coamuniata la tha Ualtad Sta^*a, had takaa 
orar. ^Vuriag tr&a ooawraatloa afeich eoourrad la tha mlddla lW0*a, "Oaaaral 
Baraia" maatloaad in partloalar Owoa Lattlaora and oaa Jonapb B*rfe«* 4kB 

orlot man ooaaaotad with tha laatttuta. A haadwrlttaa aotatloa o4 thla 
doouwaat rafloota that tha Information thara ia aaa relatad to Ooaal) 
Suriaa by ^laxaadar iar&la* oa Maroh 29, I960, 



JA A* 

s. 



Tolflo n 

Laaa 

Clegg „_ 

Qlavln ' \ 

Nlctiola . ..-,■■■•'''■. . '^ . 

Rosen \ 

Tracy \ 

Harbo 

Mohr 



Oandy 



19 



Poison. 
Add 



llchola 

tosen 

?racy 

larbo 

tohr 

'ele. Room_ 

lease 

andy 



Alaxandar Oragory-Graf f Bamlaa, * £ om«r Soviet diplomatic 
official mho dafaotad ftra* tha SoYiata in 198? said watorad the United Statoa 
ia 1940, upon iatarriaw by iuraaa rapraaoatatlroa *& Daotwfcar 14 # 1948* 
furnished iaforaatloa to tha aff<**t that Oaaaral I . A«r$lM had, whila 
Bamine vat is Moscow, mentioned that tha Sowiata had aoaa Jtotarioaa* narking 
far tham in Chiaa* Baraiaa Mttd 0n& Lattiaora as Ua* of tha iadiriduala. 
Baraiaa was raintarriawad fay flttraau raprasoatatlvas oa ttyr*** 2?* 1980, at 
whieh titoa* he aaiargad upoa tha pravlous informatics ha bad furalahai ooa- 
oaraiag Lattiwora aad plaoad Lattiaora la a S®*lat jiiHjfcary latalliganca 
aatwork in c**laa # whloh m*4 as a oorar for it** apajratioa* tha Instituta 
of Paoifia Balatioas. (100*127090-46* 74»lIMS~U4ffj l$0~*46Sa~S64, 26T, and 1222) 



t 
a! 



**T hava before ma aaothar affidavit; ^hjp original of ahioh 
la fcaiag haadad to tha FBI. •..•He statas that Lattimora wag a 
laadar la savaral pro-Huasian studaat aprlaj^gr* la Chiaa. f * 
(fha raport thaa quotad information ooww&^g ^Jhria allegation, 
noting that it had baaa raaaivsd la a ooaM&uM^atioa froa tha 
Bapartnaat of Jugtioa which 1* priatad la 1^a#?raleord)* 

Ca fttroh 30* 1950* Saaator McCarthy furniaiiad W J^iraau a fiw- 
paga, haadwrittaa, sigaad atataaaat of Upton Clo«e t data^ "Mar. 1950** la 
wfeloh it a$>paars that Xatti&ora, la tha oarly 1920 fa # waji iavotfad ia 
several studaat a, rialaga la China aloa& witkcther China* a v studaat*. 
It waa also iadlaatad la tha «tataa#at that Lattinora onjoyad a kiad of 
leadership la tha group* / , 

Oa April 1, 19&0, Upton Close, «cLaaa» Virginia, wa«\iate«i*wad 
tary Bureau representatives aoaoeraiag Owaa Lattlaoro. Close adiplsad that 
ha f irat knew tattiaora around 1920 la Chiaa, at whieh tima La^tiawra was 
asaoolatad nith Touag Chiaaaa atudaata who bacaaa pora and aor4 takaa orar 
with Ca^atuniet actirity, Lattimora waa ooaaidarad aoaaihat of a pfyimt 
aad wa» aa ia«plriag factor ia thasa Chiaaaa atudiata u^rlalaga^ \Urk, 
Cloaa alio adriaod that ha had ao kaowiadg^l rtflactiag that Lat^Utora [ }eM 
"aagagtd ia aaploaaga for tha SoTiata, hut fait th*t ha was a Coa«aui*i*t 



jie^ _w»d that ha had ha#a a aaahar of, aad ia ooataot with w CoaaajiiatXaatla. ;l * 

*»■■ y (100*24628-J7^) \ 



20 



r 



Fftg* 72-— ——In ita eoacltieioa concerning Qmn Lattiaore, tbe Coaaittee 
ragpwted that tfcey f®aad tt*a* lm*&temm mm m* m# aad -.amr 
bad beea in aay prefer »me en employee ©f oar State Bepart- 
ae&tl tbet hebtdno eoatroliiag asr effieetlre iaf lueac* vhet^w 
og ow Iter Beatena po&isyj aad tin* thfy f oasd 10 evidence that 
be 11s tise "tcp Rusaiaa e^y* or aay other a^rt of spy. la title 
connection* tha report coutaiaed the etateaeat: 



1*1 



f lfc have every confidence tbat war* Ifr. Lattiaore as 
eapioaage age&t the effieiaat 1X1 i^mlft loag aiace ha** takem 
actioa agaiaat kirn. Use fact that it ha* mot dan* #0 and 
the farther fact that *e bam eaea a aaaoery of the fBI f # iar. 
forsatioa c<j»c€raiQg Hr. Lattiaore eoafira» <a»r cg?tai0& la 
this reipect." 

fheae letter eoa^iiaioaa, ia ft© far m tfcay coacera the III, era* 
of cotiree, uawarreatea. A* aeatioaed above, it la aot with!* the profiaee 
of the TBI to iaatltate prosecutive aetian against a s*»$ect of lapeatige- 
tioa, aor caa the FBI STMwry of March 22^ I95© (aiace w^pieaeated by 
additional investigation) be properly coaetraed as a cleareaee of Lettlaore 
la eoaaacttea with the charge* oade agaiaat htau 



fage 73—— -""Owea Lattiware la a witer and a scholar A0 has beea 

charged aitb a record of pro-Coaawaie* goliag hack asay years. 
There la ao legal evidence before 11a i&etewr (tela e|$w?a»tly 
iaclude* iaf eraetiea set for** ia the IBI saaaary) to support 
this charge..., 

n * . . vse are compelled te e&aaaat that im ao imrteaee has 
Hr* Lattlaore oa the evidence before as been shova te have 
tocariugiy associated with 0<i»Sttai*ts»* 

»• aateare of the 111 aaaaaiy of Mareb ^ 195®* hM been aet 
f ortb xreiri^ialy ia «rila Mor^in. It ia traa, bouerer, tbat the mo- 
randtat la itself does sot coustitute *la§al **&&mm** 



Oaai i^rHmaa 62, of the espy of t&e rit^t aa cubaitted to tbe Bureau, 
ia aieaiag and coaae^meatly has aot beta revieaed. 



21 



FREDERICK L« SCHUM^N 

■ r iP*mW\ 

The Sttbcoasiittce fonnd that Frederick L. Schuaan has mv&r been 
an c^Ioyee of the Steta Bspartment and that his only connection with the 
Department was to deliver none hour lecture at the Foreign Sendee 
Institute on June 19* 19li6 # 

JOBW SjgftART SSKHCK 

— (HmrfWhy 

The report of the Subeewiittee stated that tfee charges against 
John Stewart Sftnlot'-hawt a dual character! (1) that he is i*o*€^«Dittniat 
aa indicated by (a) bis report* £ro» China during the period 3^3 to Aprils 
Wk$$ in which he aHegadiy advocated the cause of the Chinese Cowaaaaists* 
and (b) Ida associations during tha same period j (2) that he wee involved 
in the abstraction of Government documents in connection with the Aasraeia 
case* 

During the discussion of Service * s connection tilth the Aasrasia 
case* it wee atated that ^nator McCarthy road© the allegation* both aa a 
witness and cm the floor of the Senate* that "Fhe FBI then took ever and 
reported that in the course of its quest it was found. that John Stewart 
Service was in eoaauiiicetion fro* Ohina with Jaffa.* In this connection, 
the following similar statement ie attributed to laanuei S. Larson in his 
article in Plain Talks »The FBI then took charge of th# affair* in 
established by Congressmen Potidsro, the Government agents spent several 
months on tha case* In Die course of their quests it was found that John 
S* Service was in comunioatton fro* China with Ifev Jaffa** «%of course* 
did not fchow that Service wee in comuniostion f*o» China with Jaffa* In 
later raf eifring to tide statement attributed to both Senator McCarthy and 
l#r*en $ the Subcoiwittee report states * *T he evidence reveals that M% 
Service did not contact Jaffa froa China. The allegation to the contrary 
is based on J*arson*e Plain Talk article, which was repodiated by him.* 

On Pages Oh and 85 of the Subcoswittee report ^rm set out brief 
statements of Service** activities on sows of the dsys he was covered by 
physical aurveillance* Then follows an explanation by Service of ^actings 
shown by the surveillance. The SubeiMnittee report states t *Thla explana* 
tion by Mr* Service before no of his contacts with the ether subjects in 
the Aaaraeia case is almost m exact duplicate of that given by him before 
the grand ^ury* It is significant to ns that, at the time Service appeared 
before the grand ^ury* he had no knowledge of the physical surveillance* or 
at least no knowledge of what it revealed, Tet his explanation accounted 
for mvwj meeting reported by the FHV *hen this is coupled with the fact 



22 



that his explanation was verified by the FBI and found to be correct* no 
other conclusion can be mad* but that me* like the grand 4ury* most find 
that the aifSUnation is consistent *ith complete innocence** Prior to hie 
appearance bef ©re the grand Jury* Service* of course, did give a lengthy 
statement to Agents daring ifeich he furnished much of the material covering 
his meetings and contacts* 

On Pages 8? and 88* under the caption technical Surveillance** is 
set out a partial trauaeript of conversation between Service and Jaffa in 
jraffe^s hvfcel room en Hay 8* 19U5* and this tranacript is ref^red to as a 
"verbatim quotation* by the Subcommittee in its report. It is noted that on 
Page 87 * one statement is attributed to Service when actually our tranacripi 
reflects $hat the statement was made by Jaffej this statement is* #1 guess 
these are the only thitiga** 1 and it is made during a discussion of mhafc the 
Chinese mere doing at San Francisco* Then to©^ throughout the reporting of 
this transcript in the Subcommittee report there appear some change* in 
punctuation* bit not to the extent that it appears that the meaning ft the 
text is changed* On Page 88* in reporting a itatoment of Service* fallowing 
a space left blank to indicate an unintelligible mord or words, the fsorda 
^something skipped* have been inserted Itnd may be interpreted as moral spoken 
by Service* J 

Following the ♦•verbatim* account of the recording* there /is sei 
out "several statements prepared by the FBI 11 mhich* in suemary form relate 
additional conversation betmeen Service *®A Jaffa* ; 

On Page 91* it is reported that Mr* Brookes Atkinson appeared 
before the State Department loyalty and Security Board as a mltamap and 
verified statements mads by Service concerning an article pngmrtrflbr 
Atkinson regarding General StH*ell*# recall* Service had explained that 7 
Atkinson had mritten a story in the Mem Tork Timss for October 3I& 19U** / 
mfaich contained the gist and the only important part of the story jregiarding/ 
General Stilmell'a reeallj that he (Service) had returned to the Sifted 
States Tilth Atkiamon and had read the draft of Ms article shile traveling^ 
Following Serviced apprehension by Bureau Agents* it should be nojfced* 
Atkinson had been ^uite critical of the Bureau* j 

i 

On Page 91* the following is also set outt *Xt is most |ilgnifioant 
to note /that ir* Service arrived in Washington ~ April 12* 19k$ *4f and the 
date the TBI first found him in contact mith a subject in the Amentia case +* 
April 19* 191*5. On March 11, 19U5* the OSS raided the offices of Amerssia 
and found there mr* numerous Qovmrnment dooiMenta therein* Service pointed 
out that* manifestly* Gaffe's source of Government documents had been fully 



23 ■ . • ; 



developed by tlpt tim*| -Ate!* was prior to Kr. Senrioe^e r«t«fu to the 
OWLt«d Stfetw. !* note in this regard that on April 18* l?U!> f the F& 
had a eottferenee with General Holme* of the State Department and Major 
CorreA of the ifavy Department, At that time* the Bureau indicated that 
it was ready to present it for auoh pvomsttttws action as the Department 
of JUetioe wight think proper* On this d*te # Serviee had not yet mfet 
Jtffa # AtQhiil* or Larwn and had wet Mark Gaym f or tha first time on 
th*t day.**** 

In concluding its report of the ease of John Stewart Service, tha 
Subooas&ttee stated* "We have carefully conei<fcra*d tha evidenoe and conclude 
that John Btewtrt Service it neither a disloyei person* a pre^oGammast titsr 
a security risk, lis hare been particularly impressed with tha frsnkniea 
and eooperativenesa of ttr* Service in hie appearane* before us* Many 
questions with hidden implications hs*w been asked Wbi About eyente that 
transpired many yaara ago. Never did ha aaak to avoid answering on tha 
ground he could not remember but alwayt gave this subcommittee the benefit 
of any recollection he ni&t.haw. In Addition* ha waited hia immttaity and 
voluntarily appeared before the grand Jury in Auguet of i?l*£ # Affcor hear* 
ing all tha facta, the grand jury unanimously voted not to indict tor. Service, 
Jfe ooulA not fail to be impressed also by the a&moct contiimoua scrutiny to 
*hich he haa bean subjected duriiig th* last five years* He has been cleared 
four time* by either the State Department Personnel Board of the fltmte 
Department Security aa^i tcyal^y Board** - Continuing, the i^bc^nadttee 
reported^ 1t l* hiwe alao found significant the faot that Emmanuel ft* tmrwrn 
admitted to the FBI thai he had furnished Jaffa utth the laight osalid copies 
of the Service reports found in Jaffa fa brief oaae when he waff arrested** 1 
In a signed statement given to Bureau Agents on June 7* 19U5> taraeft stated 
that he last aasr Jaffa on Ifenday* Hay 28th f 19k$» at the Statler Hotel and 
at tha* time he did not give him any documents* That evaning* Jaffa visited 
him at his home and he showed him two State Departaant reports by Jack 
Service* Jaffa espresaly asked for Service 1 a laat reports* according to 
t#rmn$ whieh he apparently knew, tsmm *M$»itted that in addition to these 
tao reports* he had in the put given J'aff e a f^aber of olassified documents 
to read and they isay have numbered six to ten document* in all* 



MRW* smnxi 

( ! Page%) ' ' 

Ihcj&iry by the Subcommittee eetg&Lishad that Br* Barlow Shipley 
is not an employee of the Department of State in toy real and proper sense < 
He was appointed a member of the United States delogation to the ftreparttoty 



24 



% 



Coafereneo for BHESCO *k London ia %9b$» On May 20, i#tf» and ifune 2?, 
I9lt7» Shapiey w*e d*«ign»t«d lay the EjceeatiTe Conaittee of the Aperieaa 
Association for the AdYanoemeBt of Science and eae appointed lay the Secretary 
of State to eerve a* a repreiotttetiir* of that aeeociation oi the Baited 
State* MettoiMtt Cowdeelon for UW5SC0. Hti tern eipirad April 15, 19^0. 
The Subooieaitten etated that «4t*iin the proper panrietr of lie i«qalry f no 
etmsiderattofc need be given the charges sade against Sr» Shapley* 

J0H» CA.RTER VmCSMT 
(Page 95) 

the Subconwiit tee dlep&aed of McCarthy* a allegation* concerning 
Vincent in two pmr*gF*$m s atrtfcing that *we ha*a carefully reviewed the 
loyalty file ctmoarniag Vfr* Vincent ma& the JfeOertlgr charge* are abeurd 
on the basis thareef ♦ The inveatigiktion of 16% Yimeni doe* not fhor hi* 
to he dieloyal or a eecurtty rl«k # * 

In stating that the loyalty file concerning Vincent had been 
reviewed* it is believed that the report has reference to the State Departs 
«ent eeicmrity fU* perte&nl«g to hl». Tom will recall that the Bareau i* 
condnetiiig a loyalty lar^tigation of V±m*t& following aubaiesion of 
availajale data to the Department f or an opinion a* to leather euch $m 
investigation itiiox&d be conducted* Aftei? coneulting the State Department | 
the Department advieed that we should proceed with a loyalty inreetigation* 

ci&RQgg mm mmr to *m chabt» 

(Pagaa 95 and ?6) 

The Stafrooa&ittTO here refere to the apee$h by Senator IfcOartiiy 
btfore "tea Senate on ^une 6* 1950, where ha preaeiifced a phatoetatic copy 
of a page of a report stated to be beeed on m TWt chart* allegedly 
indicatitsg ^gasita* 11 «G*aWEuni»te^ ^S3#athi»er# and "Saapeete** as ewpiogred 
£n the State Departaent, The Subcommittee etatee that wtdJLe theee charge* 
are not befara the Oownittee, a great deal of publicity haa been accorded 
thi totalled li Chart and in view of thia altwtion tt ia believed that 
the facta of the aetter should ba aet forth, Thereafter, there ia quoted a 
portion of a letter dated Jvm 28 * 1S$Q$ from Mr* John 1. Pettrifoy, D«p*ty 
8^eraearetasy of 3tata f identifying the report in question m having been 
prepared $y Mr, Ktaoe, then aesigned to the Office of the Aaaietant Secretary 
for Adatoiatration, in connection with a survey of Departmental eeourlty 
investigation*. It ie observed that on Page* 29 and 30 of the BLau* report^ 
reference ia aada to a chart alleged to have been prepared by the PBK # Mr* 
Peturifoy thereafter etate* no sudh chart wae ever receiwd by the Despartm^fc 

■■■■..■; .■-■-.■■■ 2b 



r--- : 



0f State from *jhe FBI* nor warn euoh a chart ever prepared by the FBI J thai 
it had bean ooncrlualvely deterB&ned that the oh§r% waa not prepared Iby the 
FBI bat *•* prepared as an ioveatigaW'a *©irkl^g doaoaant in the Departs 
aent of State in 191*6 aad tagr aoployeee of the l>«qp$artaant of 8tatej that 
the writer of the report draw the unintentional arronaoua caaclualon that 
the chart waa w*P***& W the FBI« Mr* Peurif oy aakea reference to a 
letter dated dWe 1U$ 19$)* addreaied by the fitaeotor to the State Depart** 
aent adrieing that the FBI did not ootid any a&ob ahart to the State 
Bopartaant and made do a^Huation of inforaatioii ae aes indicated in the 
Klaus reporW fhie letter dated Jwcm %k$ 1950* addreeeed fay the BLrectar 
to Mr. Jane* !• Hebb y ttoderaeoretafcy of State, la quoted verbatim in the 
Suboow8ittee , a report. It ia alao noted that Mr* Fewifoyia letter to 
the Subcowittee of Jwm 28* l$f$ $ aaswee the member* that none of tha 
eapleyeea named on tha chart in qaoatlon are preae&tly employed hy the 
State Department except thoee *fao have ilnoe been iisveotigeted and itfio 
have bean checked mod evaluated tinder the ioyaJty Frogrfca. 

Mdition*! detaiXa t^ncerning the Strata Department* a repudiation 
of Senator McCarthy** ooaoenta cono^nLn§ the chart in ipootiesi are containad 
In State Dopartront releaaeft of Juaa &p iad farm 9* 19S&* reproduced In 
Appendix 17 of the Subcommittee's report* 



26 



f 



AUK 'ASIA CASE 

(Pages 96-lUll) 

?hs Aaeraaia Casa is covarad in tha report made avail&bla by tha 
$ytfinga Gowaittaa baginning on paga 96 and wading on paga 144* 

A review has baan mads of thaas pagaa for any ikaas which art 
orltical of the Bureau, any inaccuracies aa to tha facta of tha oaaa as 
thay ara known to tha Buraau, and for any othar aattara which *r* of 
intaraat to the Buraau* lh#. following hava bean 00 tad i 

Faga 101 

Mr. UoInernay«a tasttnoxyr undar footaota #324 shows that tha Buraau 
took ovar tha invastigation on a t*snty*four hour basic baginning torch 12, 
1945* Thia atataaant is inaccurata bacausa tha Satraau did not raoaivs tha 
case until March H, 1945, and tha invaatication waa cowisncad on tha follow- 
ing day, Jliarch 15* 1945* 

#*aw*#**w«a#a**####..-- 



Tolsoo 



Clegg_ 
Olavln 



Nichols 



Tracy_ 
Harbo 



Mohr ^ 

Tele. Roam_ 

Neaee 

bandy 



Paga 102, last paragraph, and f irst paragraph tap of paga 1 03 

... . . . . , , . » » t. :::■-* ! - " " ' , 

this part of the raport covara tha Buraau* a anawara to quaationa 
aakad by Senator $ydings in oonnaction with this case. 

*0tJE5TIClfj Vara any aaployssa of tha Stata Dapartaant **wi giving documents to 
othar paraona on tha outsida? 

"AKSWERs Whila actual physical daiivary of docnaaenta was not obssrvad, 
tha fact ranalna that hundrsda of claasifiad doouasnta wars rsoovarsd from 
unauthortssd paraona on Juna 6, 1945* Larsan and Samoa wara obsarvsd in 
fraquent contact with Jaffa and Both* Sarvica also a*t with Jfcrk Oayn and 
has stayed in hia Haw lork apsrteant. Both taraan and Sarvica hava adsdttad 
giving doouwnta to Jaffa. Laraan and Sarvioa wsro also obssrvad carrying 
amralopaa or a xipper oaaa out of tha Stata Daparteant. As a furthar illua- 
tration of tha operations of this group, Sarviea aat with Jaffa in a hotsl 
roan on Itoy 8, 1945# Sarvica diaeuasad military, political, and policy 
sAttars aith Jaffa and csutlona4 hist by saying 1 «»*1I, what 1 said about 
tha atUitaxy plans la, of oaursa, vaiy secret. ,M 

It is notad that tha answar to tha abovs quaation is tha aaaa 
as tha answar to quaation #5 eontaiaad in tha statamant furt&ahed to tha 
[tydinga Ccawsittaa ty Ifefters* Nichols m& tadd. an *qr 31, 195Gj howavsr, 
:tha following was oiittad *(as ws ara advised by dfcpartaentol attomsya.) tt 



2? 



It U also noted thot t ©©tse*e #386 on $*ee 103 ****** $*** the 
statement attributed to Senrtee was Bot arailable to the »s$artaeat of 
Jtaattee for utilisation before tbe Grand £i«ry inasamch as tbe report ce»~ 
carsiiag the coarereation between <Jaffe and Service was received fey tile 
Department of Jaetice with the following <a**e*t f m tbe Federal Bureau of 
iMfeitiisft^^ "Moot of the fowling information regarding the contacts 
sad* by the rariows principle* wad docuaents which were exchanged nere 
obtaiaed through highly confidential aeaas end sources of Sat orwetion 
which eanaot be wed in evidence." 

fhe repast cowering the conversation batmen Service and Jeff e 
et the Statler lotel on May 8^ 19^5 (report off Special Agw»t Logan J. Saae, 
Washington Field Off ice, dated 5-26-1*5) , *** »t contain any statement ae 
eet forth above; however. Bureau letter to Mr- Am Clerk of tbe Bepartaeat, 
dated Hey 25, 19^5, which omtUatt the facte la tills case as of thet ds&e, 
did contain arch a statement verbatim on page 8, paragraph 2* tinder tbe 
beading 9 |«fi«m/ (!QtNfi6?360~£37, 260 p,8) 

foge lOg, footaetf f^ f an* page 1C&, paragraph 7 

Rr* Wslaaraey, according to Me tentiaoey as shown in footnote 
#331, page 103, stated aa follcwwt 

*Hhe& tbe case caae to ae on May tbe 294*, I was aware, of 
eosrae, of its inception and tbi nature of tbe aaaaer in which 
It started, and m «e bed done in ether case* during tbe wartime, 
we attthorixed prosecution eve** though ne kw tbat tbe evidence 
«ee t^hfcrfV and we authorized prosecution because tbe Bureau ted 
been very successful ia obtaining concessions sad adKlsslons which 
obviated tbe necessity of having to tender this evidence or offto 
it in ceart, and those were tbe two eeaclueioos I cane to o* Msy 
tbe 29t&, or three conclusions. 



*0ae, tbet tbe case was vulnerable because of its inception on tbe 
fart of 001 two, that in evaluating tbe local evidence, which 
la««ely eoaeietea of jbjsieal aian^lJLiiece only, tbet we diA act 
tbe* bave sufficient erldeace to witborixe proeecution* 

vl Xbe third coaclusioa was tbat aiace tbe Bureau has obtained 
cxMaceeaieos and ad*isaloas to cnr«r 80 per ceat of its cases, 
tbet with tbe usual break ia tbe prooeewtlcs here, we wo»ld 
eet incrlafaatiag adaissioas and coMesslons which would obriate 
a trial, and sbm tbe need f or -prea^^lhg or tendering this 
erideaee..,. .. .* 



28 



?a£e 104 paragr aph 7 

fhe rtport than goat on to state that 16% IfeSatrnty in ea^laiaing Mb 
authorisation of prosecution etated that he did ao "alma our experience has 
already been that we can make a caae on an apprehension and aeareh.* the report 
farther states that it appears, therefore, that* while realising inanffieient 
lagal ewidenoa was at hand, Ur. ifeXnerney authorised prosecution on tha theosy 
that a search conducted incident to the ariwst of the six eubjecte would produea 
tha required evidence, taken with the pe&slbility of aeeuring confeeeiona foliating 
tha exveete. fho report also saya that 'We . Hclnemey autborteed pxweentlon 
despite hia f€faUng that tha ease might ha vulnerable and tha evidence developed 
aiao would ha held inadmissible in a Court proceeding by reaeon of tha investi- 
gative techniques that had been employed by OSS and FBI* 

Pag a 107 footnote 345 

Mr. Mclnerney taatlflad that aa early ae June 27, 1945 "if* were being 
inundated with threatened motlone to euppreee tha evidence, bille of perticulare 
and return of tha property, atc*«* 

this la tha first knowledge tha Bureau haa received that any of tha 
attoraayi for tha subjects had considered filing a Motion to auppiwas tha evidence 
at a data aa aarly aa JUns 27 , 1945* Xt *111 ba reoalled that laraan filtd auoh 
a motion on Septaafear 28, 1945* 

" -1' . - - ' 

BfcgtellB to 122 

mmmmumammmrngmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 

Tha ooamittee raport states tha Department did not prosecute Jaffa, 
Larsen and Roth after tha otbar three eabjeote had baaa no hilled by the Grand 
dtity for the following three reaeonet 

1. Laraen filed a motion to supprese the evidence on September 26, 
1945 claiming the FBI had entered hia apartment illegally prior 
to the data of hia arreat. 

2. She Department had tha belief that Jaffa *a attorney night file 
a similar motion aa to the Aaerasia Offices, thereby destroying 
the evidence against Jaffa and tha other subjects. Having thie 
belief, the Department decided to enter into an immediate -— ~™ 
agreement witk Jaffa's attorney to plead him guilty on 
September 29, 1945, before Jaffa* a attorney had a chance to 2 
ohaage Ida mind. 



„JiS^IO 



29 



■ axotfaig 
Wat? 

, . . .TrtftE 
W^srt 



Tolson, 
Ladd__ 
Clegg — 
OUvln 



3. ftift Bapa*rt**»t attomays h*d intaryiewad laraan and Jaffa and 
neither of the* offewai any info**rtion to eirangthen the oaee 
against Roth and, therefore, the Department entered a nolle 
proeae at to Roth. 

Page 130 paragraph 6 

the report etated as followet 

*0n September 2B $ 1945 tha GrisdnaX mirlalon unmi infomed 
that &araen'a aUornay vai <*bont to £11* a dmwrrer, motion to 
quaah tha Indiefewmt and mn application to mpprm*& tha evidence 
obtained f torn tha aearch of I*raen'e apartment." 

ttftepreeentativee of the Criminal Bivieion conferred with 
FBI official* on tha morning of September 38, 1945* *&& it wae 
generally agreed that tha oaee wa* In eer&me jeopardy* A number 
of auggeetione *• re m»de and discarded.* 

ftm above etatement aa to a coaftrenoi between represent&tlvae of tha 
Criminal ^vision **o& FBI officials on tha m&rning of September 28, 1945* 1* 
falae. Tha statement aa made here would lead on* to beliew that tha Bnraat* 
awl Departmental RepreeentatiYea had conferred m to whet steps ahould be taken 
with r^epect to Larson's notion. Honrawr, If any ccmfarring waa dona and 
suggeetions made, tha Bureau had no part* Tha tree facta art ti follows: 

% memoranda* datad September 26, 1945 tha Bureau notified 
tha Attorney General that Hr. K. H. Sagpr* Manager of Larsen f a 
apartment told an Ag*nt of tha Waehington Field Of floe on 
Septei&er 25* 1945 that ha had admitted to I*raan on tha 
pravioua data that ha had afforded Agente of tha FBI aocees 
to I*re*n*e apartment. This infowaUon was fun&ifeed to tha 
Attorney Goneral with tha euggeetlon that if a Departmental 
Bapraaantattm wo^ld talk to Safer, that Sager would ha 
inatrutted to call at tha Department of J&atioe. W> further 
aotion was taken by tha Bureau at that time* 

(100-267360 serial 685) 

Baga 331 



-DLbpPBltLm of Case Against taraen 



The report stated, *Wl%h tha 0*0* of Jfcffe aafaly disposed of In what 



waa considered a warmer satisfactory nn&er tha circfcmptenees, tha Department 



T^ey waa atill confronted with a motion to suppreaa filed by Z«araan* A number of 



Haroo 

Mon r 

Tele. Room, 
Nease 



dandy vJ U- 



r 



coaftereaear m$m held liite the sttoraap* tor taraea ted Rote in aa aCfort t& 
ohtete pleas of guilty l^t vithout aucsaaa. Larsea'a attorney «fc f*rat tool; 
the posit&oa te ***&* act eowaidtae * jftea tettl hi* aolio* to suppraee «** 
decided. 

*The tte* £$* filing the GowtuaeisVa reaponae to tee aotioa to a*Q$r*ss 
tea deferred. Ja raaparae to tee motion, the Gcrrerwwait wottld be*® tee* obliged 
te admit the illegality of tet search and aeixure* Howrer, the aeceaaity for 
aa&Sag thi* adaetaaitts w arerted tee* Lareea'e ccwaeel fiaally oftarad te 
plead Ms eliete isoio coateadere if be cotdd miliii *o»e mmKt teat oaly * 
aoigtete fine weald te i^?o«ed. te pot&ted out that teraaa ted fete* i*pc«ed 
ape* toy JW»#> «te* be ted loai hi* fionnasst position teiefc he ted held ffer 
ID year*, that te w ttae^Loyad and paanileaa, ate tea* te ted a tete aad 
f a*ily depetee&t 190* his* 

"The Govenaaeiit m aware $f theee facta Mi f iaally aerate* if eofc~ 
aalted fey the Court to reco— iod a fiae at #500. f&ia poeltioa *m tetea l«r«aly 
teeatee ©f the aha** factors ate alao teeanaa te realised that Oaffe tea tea 
aala tetywM* that ha had corrupted L&reea aad tea reepoatihle tm Ma pl$£h% 
and that it wtld te »eaifeetly tejmt far Lereea to me«£w .* eeatemce greater 
car **ea equal to teat tepated upon ja£f*~ Larees entered a plea af aolo cte* 
tea&ere oa teweater 2, 194$ ant tee fiaed #3©®* aa recc*»eo&ed fey the Qmte^t/ 

«##*#*»HHHHHHHHHHI*###e 

Ste uprlttilid! *&aly tte c*a* agateat tote aair reaeiaed. SMa 
caae vae wry wak ML d e fea te d em eeveral g aflat ef haodwritAag tad typewriting 
(identified aa Betfh'e) at teat appeared to be official daetea&te* Gat tepteate? 
2?> 19*5* State ted filed a deeairrer afcteekiag the iadictewat aad a nation for a 
hiU of particulara, Mfflprnmsfc oa theae aet&eaa ted teaa poat»<»ed ftxai tiaa to 
ttee. 

*At tea Uae the Departeeat offered to ^accayt plaaa of guilty fras 
Jaffe ate Laraeo tea @af«^«mte% i^tew^at informed their cooaael that Jaffa 
aad Laraea would te e^npf aed hy the Gwariattet co«ael tn m* atteapt te. try te 
atrea^thea tea teaa a^iaat Sate. Shis *aa doaa ted h^Sfe »ea aare interrte^ed 

telteiwtew ate Sac«tear# 19%5* 



*l4mvte# *^fewrtt«^ad «£th reapect to Roth't coeplicity, *aa iiaahle te 
■take «^y cotttrihutioa except that Be^h arrajaged the iatrodw:ti<»& betweea hia aad 
Jaf fe early ia 3^% whUe hote te ate Both vare employed hy OK. la ^wld not 
implicate loth te the coaa^iracy aad aa a natter of ftet hte atetaaaat taoded te 
exculpate Roth^ m wmmk% $m teicfc te had ao teote «atite. Mtef telteteg tea 



31 



facta m to hov be «** iatro&Haed t© Jaffe aai fiotfe &* March, l^W^ laurao* atata* 
that -«sfe ao t£*e d*4 lot& iM fee **er dieeiwp t*rae& f a teWfttMos* wltfe Jaffa* 
fior did te and JSaffe d3«@«*a m&k m tim p^*«nee of Both. LarseR ftated «tati 
ke ht& m faets iihatetoever tiwat woiaM indicate that Roth tow that fee, I*raea, 
wae applying docuaesta to J&ffe. Laraea aaid that Roth Btw aav Ma g$*e JkCSt 
*«3r iiaterial $^r *a*r Jaffa «#f* a^ »M&*i&3l to &&* (Laraon). Lareefi f»*kar 
staiet that 1m aewr s« Roth ieiiwr ■wilftiiv **«* *ffe Belter 

told it* that fee* **ffe, vu fettiag any aaterlal .-fro* Bothj Bar did Jtotfe e^er 
tell. Lasreea t&a* fe»« &$&&» *i# giTing aay mtor&aX to Jaffa. Larsan dM 
j»aatioii oae incident 'iii# oeewsrtfi early |& 1#%5> It said t^ut% he »** Itoth 
leare the lairy B*parta«Ht, with a largo eawelogpe filled wi$k aoartMaftj ^$»* 
Beth atated ie vaa ^*&« I18K& wt#k J6tf f e ead that o» the return of Beth lie 
bad fiotMs« Id Ms baud- Larsea asserted that whether Rotfe ge*e tie contents 
oT tie eii?*el€£e to JTatfe or H*& *ar i* tfe^--«ffml4gii too*. I****** toes not tawr. 
later Laracci corrected the date of tfei* incident aad said that ft awat ha*e 
been late fx 19& ***l*er thaa i» 1$&5* 

"Jaffa,, a lojag-tiae friend aaad aaaociat* ^f Both cc«&Le$ely i&ioi*«4 
Bot& of any teotledge or participation is tfc* matter aad explained bow Jioth 
happened to oopy several doexaefits for Mm. ftejfc* ttoo 8epart»tat expected aiace 
it *$* mot aei*e eaeiath to eaj>ect Jaffte to |a®^t**o 8©th* 



• • * * 



"W&He the j fcyaical iwwtliikKa^ shoved ae^tiega between, lotfe aad 
^ ^be ^^aw^ fee naa nt^ar <*e^r»e4 traaaaittlag or apeoal^Iag Gowmaaat 
doctiftentc. Several e£ thaae awetiBgs naape of a aoclai mature. «»xe was »o 
eiri««ce. t*at Ro^fe wtoWtaUy '.iaMwrii iaiy @oii»p««»»t lo^neata* MNovHr^ 
aiace ^ie defeoiaats were changed nt*fe eofi^irlag to «atfbeztla ani f^aaiPa 
©werais^% dociaaeHta, eaaeatial al«»wat« of tlta affame war* the aatarisg of 
each *efe«taQt into t&a agreement to coaalt those a«l«af^l object* of 1te 
e«n^eMf®ar# «**b Ift&i&edga of tke existence ^aareoC and iateat ^> fqjirtker 1^» 
purp<»« lm mmm aaaoer. Site j^oalacmttoii i^ld teve had to piwe tlaaae aaaeatial 
clms$fe#> to aec^re coiaviGtioM. As regarda Rotk, tber e waa m i«^of t*a% 
ie ext^reA 1^*0 wmh m *&$mw& w&m QWmm* #t ^at ft© kad tfee tooviedge 
aad eriaiBal latest "ta »ake "m $G$mm a «eift>er of a coaa^iraey. 

"la viev of «ae at^te of tie evidence abore ontllBed^ ^a ^ei^toa 
vas reached ^at the caae a«aia»t Boti eo^M a©t be a»c^elMsfWly prosec^tei. 
*f%er iseveral poatp^a«3w»at« ^ bearia«a og »©tie«» bi-o^gfet % lotfc% a^@a»eya., 
aad aft©? aa Tans^ceeaaful effort ir«a ilttde to pXaee it om tha pending iaaetive 
docket, tte fioi«r^wtit nas foar^ed to, nolle proawe the case agaiaat Mat m 

»»*i »»m »M»aiaa#K«3 i Nfca 



32 



r 



ToXBon_ 

Lartd 

Clegg_ 
Olavin 



Rosen. 
Tracy^ 
Harbo, 
MohrJ 
Tele. 
Nease, 
dandy 



Co*ta*endatory Stetaaient Concernin g FBI 'a Acti on in Tt&B (free* 

On Page 133 the following paragraph appeal* la 'the Reports 

*fhit report ia not Intended to qualify the eeiioueneae or grei&ty of 
thle ottiv' the FSX'ft prompt end vigorous action in face of • eituation already 
tainted with illegality was of i»eetia*ble aenrioe to thle country, Thia report 
only deal* with the dirficultiea of auceeeaful pxoeeoution and the baeoe for the 
d^cieiona «*de." 

4HHH9e-t^Hv«r^4HHmeiH»M' ■ 

Jtegea 138 to 144 

Suro afctloa by the Comittoo 

The Coanittee eumarUed it* inwatigetion of the AMimaia Caae in 
the following five point* aa aet out hareefter* 

*!• It haa b^en aaeerted that an effort wa« wade to delay the inveeti- 
getion. The TBI haa denied that there waa *»y delay whatever in its imreetigatiea 
and that no efforts were »ade to »fi**' the eaee ineofar aa the FBI ia conceded* 

t«2« Similarly, charge* have been aade that ef forte were uade to delay 
proaecution* fheaa chargee now appear to hew atewaed fro» advice gi^en the 
FBI on May 31» 1945* by tho Department of Aietloe that proeeeution efaosld bo 
held in abeyance pending the outooait of the United Setiona Conference at $en 
Freneiaco* thie fact haa precipitated a floodtlde of speculation and unwarranted 
innuendoe, culminating In the queation of whether Alger Htaa« hand way have b* en 
in tho picture* ft ia now oryetal oleer that the edviee received by the FBI to 
hold the prosecution in abayanot originated in a desire of the late Mr. Jkoaea 
ForreateX, Secretary of tho ti*vy$ that the ft&X i^plioaticmf of the proposed 
arrseta in the Meraeia case be conveyed to the Fresident in consideration of 
the delicate character of our conversation with the Soi&et G&Lan at tha tint 
and tho treatment which the press would accord the case ley reaaon of the 
Cottffiuniat oonneotiona of eo»» of thfc aubjeote* Upon learning of the wetter* 
the President on Jane 2 $ 1945* personally ordered tha FBI to procaad at one* 
with t^e ease and not to be deterred by instructions fro* anyone* The State 
Sepertaent waa equally ineiatent upon prcseeuting the ease to the ft&leet* 
Tha facta clearly reveal there waa no "delay* in handling toe oaae in ary 
reel or eubetantial sense* 



33 



Toleon. 
Ladd 



Slav in 



"3. It has baen aaaartad that tha |3ai*rt»ant of jUatioa failad to 
prosacuta tha oaaa to tha fallaat and oossprowiaod it to tha prajmdioa of tfea 
end* of Juiitioa. ttm of fioiala diraatly ratpontibla f or proaatwtiaig tha a«i 
haw tastifidd undar oath that thay had absolutaly a fraa rain in handling *h» 
eaaa at all stagaa of tha proaeeution and wara under no ocaipuleion or rastraint 
fr&a any flouroa whatawr* Share ia not even a ahrad of evidence bafora us 
auggsating the contrary. It appeare that the eaaa waa handled to tha vesy baat 
of thair ability in the light of tha legal and factual prohima confuting 
then and thair understanding of the lav* Certainly oamacn aenee and fairness 
entitle Federal officiala to tha aatiipptieh that they hava conseieBtioue2y done 
thair duty^ at laaat until facta to tha contrary* not here present, are shown. 
fbm fact that acme of tha defendant* did not receive tha puriUheent which we 
today feel ttaay deeorved or which we would like to hava eeen the* receive ia 
the raault of certain incidents of tha eaaa which have baan heretofore die- 
cuaaad and not the result of dereliction on the part of tha prosecuting 
offids&s* Older mil of tha eijetnaietanoee of tha eaaa* wa ara eonatrainad 
to suggest that the Dopartmant was fortunate in aeeurlng the jp*^aha*nt that 
waa abated out. 

"4. Ona of tha moat snide and disgusting charges in thle oaaa haa 
baan tha euggeation that tha handling of tha Aeexmsia preeeeution by Mr* 
Robert it. Hitchcock say hava had a relationship to hi* aubecquently haooning 
aesoeiated with a Buffalo* H» T.* law fira In which an uncle of ona of tha 
Aneraeia defendants* Kate fcitchell, was a partner. There i a absolutely no 
baaia whatever ftor auoh a euggeation. fha fiacte ara that* aaqy asntha aftar 
tha Aaaraaia eaaa was disposed of* ifr. Hitchcock waa approached for tha flret 
ti»a by a masker of the law fi^i with a irJLow to hia beecsiing an associate 
tharaof to handle a epeeial field of litigation for which ha waa pacn&iariy 
wall equipped by reason of hia trial experience; Significantly, thie aas&er 
of tha fitm had no knowledge of tha r&atlonahip batwaan Ms partner and 
Ilea Mitchell* 

*5* There hairealco been allegatione that tha appaaranoa of Philip 
Jfccob Jaffa for sentencing on Saturday aorning, September 29* 1945* waa an 
unusual and unprecedented procedure* with tha inference that something ia*- 
pwper waa intolved* the partona who land thmaalvaa to ewch a vicious 
fabrlaaticm do a grave injuatiot to the praaiding judga* the Sonorabla Jtoaa M. 
Proctor, in ijaplying that ha w^uld paxwdt aaoy i«|m>ptr p»oadara. 

« Iha faet of tha atattar is that in tha <Mtad Stataa District Court 
for tha Biatrtot of Coliawbia, a judga ia always a&aignad to du^ on Saturday 
nominga. fhia judga ia atailabla for a»argancy cases and will alao, at hia 

ia not 



diseration, handla hriaf wattaraf or tha convanianoa of counsal. It ia i 
at all unusual for a cata to ba hsard on Saturday w**&8i if th© jiaa ia 
"ehaagad from ^not guilty" to »gailty»» and a Bpmmy dispoaitiw ia daalrad by 



Rose n a ll partiaa. Boraover, it ia ouatcasaiy for ootmaal to dataradna in advanoa 

Tracy _that ^o Judge ia f raa and aat a t:uaa to appear* therafore, tha Jaffa oaaa 

Harbo — — waa handlad in tha wm» routina aannar as «angr other oaaaa* 

Mohr ._■-.. .-,..■.■ * 

Tela. Room v . ' •-'..''.' 

Maaae 

oanay ^ O h 



r 



Clegg. 



Nlchole_ 
Rosen 



Harbo_ 
Mobr 



Tele. Room_ 

Nease^ 

Dandy 



There has alae been criticism of the fact that the jfldge was not ad- 
i&sed of the *0«*a*uaUt oonnectlona* of Philip Jacob Jaffa. 8ueh a eiitiela» 
is the direet iwsult of a misunderstanding of the ease. It mat be remembered 
that Jaffa was charged with conspiracy to obtain unlawfully Oavarmamt doctaenta* 
The Government had no evidence of tha tmnas&ssion of thaae documents by Jlef fa 
to othere*. The only conceivable purpose Ratifying tha use of information 
about JSaffe'e Qowunlat connections would be on a theory that it would indieate 
the possibility of a transmission of tha information to the Soviet ©mien, to 
submit such allegations would in affaet be an attempt to abow that espionage 
hcvi bean committed when a leaser orime waa ch*ig«d and pleaded to, deepite 
tha fact that no evidence waa available to aupport a charge of eepio**»ge# 

The Government attorney handling tbe'atee vara convinced that, unieaa 
they obtal»d a plaa imeadtately, » conviction *&etever of Jbf fa could ever ba 
obtained, f hay had first received word on Friday, September 28, 1945* that 
t*r*nn planned to file a motion to quash. They believed that cnea Jaffa 
learned of the unauthorised entries into tareaih** apartment, he would iwaediately 
follow tha same procedure, ^inoa illegal antriaa had bean mad* in tha imerasia 
office* aleo, they ware convinced that legally suet* a notion would be granted 
and tha entire eaaa lost, f herefore, only erne alternative regained* They 
communicated, aa heretofore discussed, with Jaffa* a attorney and entered into 
a binding agreement to accept a plea 'of guilty in return for a Qoveroe&nt - 
reoom&endation of a eubatantlel fine as the punishment, tbia agreement being 
mde before Jaffa • a attorney could learn of th<* newe ab&ut iJtrsaa's notloa to 
<pash* 

* Tha Go varment also considered it neceaeaiy to -have tha plaa formally 
entered aa aoon aa possible in order to eliminate any possibility that Jaffa 1 a 
attorney would back out on hie oomiaitmant. X$ addition, Jaffa deairad that tha 
oaae be eettied immediately. Ones the Government mttojraeya ware befbre the Court 
with an agresment to recommend a fine, it me mamifeatly impossible for thaat to 
argue that tha offense was ao heinous, because of the sublet 1 a alleged Commaaiet 
connectione, that a greater sentence should be imposed. If they attempted to 
do this, it would obviously release Jaffa from hie oossadtaant and ha would ba 
free to withdraw hie plea and fila hla own *Botio& to quash* 

n A farther consideration bearing on thie queatlon ia that the Govern^ 
ment in 1945 did not have proof that Jaffa was a maafcar of the Communist Party* 
The moat they had waa that Jfcf fa had soas Cotama&et eonneetione, which wera not 
par ee illegal or reprehensible, especially in 1945 whan the Soviet tinion, at 
leaat for all practical purposes of public moment, waa an ally and friend of 
te United States. |he allegations of Cojwmiat connections would not have 
-bean legally a&daaible evidence aid thus had no probative significance. 



"The matter of Jaffe's plea, therefore, resolves itself into ft question 
of legal judgment and tactics. If the Department of Jtaatice attorneys were correct 
in their conclusion that the evidence was legally inadmissible and that any delay 
in acting would allow <Taffe to escape without punishment, they were obviously 
right in their action. If, on the other hand, they made an error in legal 
judgment, their procedure was wrong. Since they choose the former, it follows 
that once eomsr&tted to this course, they could not present the allegations of 
Jaffa's COHnaunist connections, assuming they should have done so, without de- 
feating their own objective. Therefore, any criticism of the handling of the 
case before the Court is solely a question of the validity. of the judgment 
of the Department of justice attorneys* Ye do not feel it incumbent upon us 
-* : -*o attempt to resolve this legal question, since we find that the Jaffa case was 
presented to the c ourt with the sole intention of furthering the best interests 
of the United States as the attorneys handling the matter in their best judgment 
and honest belief appraised the situation*** 

Testimony of Messrs. Ladd and Nicholg 

The testimony of Assistant to the Director D* M. Le&d and Assistant 
Director L. B. Htchols, furnished to the subcommittee ©& May 31# 1950, Is not 
set out in the report ia its entirety* Howewe, frem time to time, exeeipts 
of their testimony are nrntioaed in footnotes* It is further noted that in 
Appendix I, which is a statement concerning the im?estigat*a«* by the sub- 
cowslttee, under 10 (c), it is stated that one of the matters gone into by 
the ©^committee was the interrogates of Associate Director D. K, Ladd and 
Assistant Director L. |>. Hiehols of the FBI concerning the investigation of 
the Atserasia case. It"i* stated that these gentlemen advised they vere in a 
position to supply the full story of the case frcii the XBX's standpoint aad 
that their testimony before the Subcowiittee* fcleaag with the Hobbs Committee 
record* constituted the complete story* (Apgpemaix I p pages 155* 15&) 



Toiso n 

Ladd 

Clogg 

Glavln, 

NicholB 

Rosen 

Tracy 

Harbo .__ 

Moh r 

Tele. Room_ 

Neaee 

Garidy 



36 



r 



THE SOCRCES OF THE CHARGES ; 
(Pages 144-148) 

i** ■ ■■''''.'"- 

The Committee report*^ that after ajft extensive investigation it felt 

in a position to indicate the- pritey sources, of thtf charges which have been 
made in this ease* ^--^ /'*>Vfc**»** 



Charge of large Humber of Communist* in the State watttmsatt 

The Committee stat^Ifhat ifftnestigato^of the Bouse gtibecimittee, 



considering the State Bepart»elt|jy^ the Sixtieth Congress, 

prepared memoranda concerning AdwfiSdividuals based on information contained 
in State Department security filet* These memoranda* continued the raport, 
did not represent or purport to be a full analysis of the files involved and 
in some instances related to applicants never employed and to cases of 
mistaken identityi four coasoittees of the Eightieth Congress did not regard 
the memoranda as significant or indicative of disloyalty in the State Depart- 
ment and they did not even submit a report concerning them* 

Selections fSrom these 108 memoranda, dressed up to appear more 
sinister and alarming, it was charged, were uaed by Senator McCarthy as title 
basis for his February 20, 1950, speech on the Senate floor which precipitated 
the investigation and which were presented as inf ormation only recently given 
him covertly, by "loyal* employees in the State Department* 

Charge That Communists and Other Disloyal forces in the State ; 
De partment Sabotaged American China Follcy 

Three well^lef insd sources were said by the Committee to have been 
responsible for the charge that disloyal individuals have been responsible 
for the "failure of America's China policy* •■ These were listed as perversion 
of the testimony of Patrick J* Hurley, former Ambassador to China, before 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in December* 19451 Alfred Kohlberg> 
Mew York City Importer | and an article purportedly written by Emmanuel S* 
Larson, one of the defendants in the Amerasia caas, for the October, 194&, 
issue of Plain Talk* Larssn repudiated the latter article in all essential 
respects, submitting to the Committee his dftraft-Hdhich bore "little or no 
resemblance to the articles which was published** The action attributed to 
Isaac Don Levins, editor of Plain Talk, and his associates in connection with 
the article was condemned by the Committee as beneath contempt* 



37 



THE FACTS BKBXMP THE CHARGE Qg» "TOITBWASB" 
(Pages M9-151) 

The Committee bitterly assails the charge that.it had "whiteiiraurted^ 
the investigation into McCarthy's allegations concerning Communists in the 
(tovernment, stating that such charges ware ah "organised campaign of 
vilification and abuse*" The report then gives an analysis of the campaign^ 
stating that the f actors responsible for su6h a campaign were : 

1* The necessity of creating the impression that the inquiry 
was not thorough and sincere in order to camouflage the fact that the 
charges made by Senator McCarthy were false and that the Senate and the 
American people had been deceived. The report states that from the beginning, : 
Senator McCarthy had sought to leave the impression that the Cowittee was 
investigating him* instead of the "Disloyalty in the St$te Department,*, because 
it is now known that he had no facts to support his "wild and baseless charges, * 
axkl lived in mortal fear that thU situation would be exposed. ,.• 

2# An effort to force upon the Committee the adoption of unfair 
methods and procedures which would permit the "conviction* 1 of individuals on 
the basis of unwarranted considerations* The report stated that the Committee 
had tried to apply the principles Of fair play, and when a charge against an 
individual was publicly made, to give that person a chance to make a public 
reply* The report claims that an attempt was made to force upon the Committee 
the ^rankest sort of hearsay testimony, and then when such testimony was not 
allowed, cries of "whitewash" were heightened* 

3* A third factor in the campaign to create the "whitewash" idea 
was the desire to leave the thought that the Committee was engaged in a cover- 
up of something dark and sinister in the administration* The report states 
that this tactic was a political maneuver designed to obfttscate the fact that 
the proponents of the charge of disloyalty in the State Department were 
without facts, and was thwarted when the President opened the loyalty files 
to the Cosmittee* 

4* The fourth factor in the "whitewash 11 campaign was the fact that 
a prominent newspaper chain (unnamed) was being sued for libel by erne of the 
defendants in the Amerasia case with the result that, by seeking to force 
procedures and findings of a certain character, it was felt the suit would be 
unsuccessful* 



38 



^ 



< : A 



The Committee's report states that the campaign of vltlfloatioxi 
and fHthitewash* had been partially successful due to the following 
considerations t 

X* The fact that until now the Committee has not been in a positien 
to tell the truth (about the Whitewash* charges) to the American people. 

2* "Another consideration is the of t-repeated and natural reaction 
of many good people that goes soraething like this ■- ♦Well, there must be 
something to the charges, or a Uhited States Senator would never have made 
them««« ' ' 

3* Th© third consideration has been the readiness of many people 
to believe charges of disloyalty in the State Department by reason of the 
Alger Hiss case* 

4« The fourth and final consideration has been the vague uneasiness 
of many Americans concerning the ascendancy of: the Coosranists in China and 
the decline of the Nationalist Government* the Comrdttee feels that such a 
setting makes a fertile ground for the people to believe that someone, perhaps 
in our own State Department, may have been responsible for this situation 
The Committee recommends the State Department "Vhite Paper* to anyone desiring 
to know the real facts concerning American diplomacy in China during 1944-1949* 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 
(Pages 151~152) 

The report states that in concluding the report of its investigation, 
it was constrained to make several observations which were regarded as 
fundamental* The first was that *Jt is, af course, clearly apparent that 
the charges of Communist infiltration of and influence upon the State Depart- 
ment are false» n The Committee states that *we have s^en the technique of 
the •Big lie, • employed by the totalitarian dictators with devastating success, 
utilised for the first time on a sustained basis in our history* * The 
Committee states that it is its sincere opinion that the charges of the 
character made in this case seriously impair the efforts of the agencies of the 
Government In combatting the problem of subversion* The report states that 
the charges wade by McCarthy had succeeded to a great degree in doing what 
the Communists themselves had been trying and were unable to do - divide our 
people here at home and our allies abroad* 



39 



I 






J 



*We have seen how, through repetition and shifting. untruths,* 
states the report, w it is possible to delude great number* of peopled It 
was noted thai an analysis of this technique was contained in Appendix 24* 
a review of which follows* : 



ANALYSIS OF THE CHARGES MADE BY SENATOR 
JOSBPB R* McCARTHT 
(Appendix 24* Jfcges 296*337) 

fhe Committee noies that on February* 9$ 1950, Senator McCarthy 
opened a campaign against the Department of State which of its kind was 
perhaps the most sensational in the history of the Ohited States* < flpi» 
paralleled in cynical character assassiiiation,* reports the CosmittWi hanging 
in its application from the President of the tfaited States to minor Washington 
clerks, professionally and expertly keyed to lurid sensationalism, viciously 
unscrupulous in falsely heightening the fears of the public in a time of 
international crisis, versatile, opportunistic, and, at times, desperate, 
Senator McCarthy ®nre birth to and steadily nurtured a phenomenon deai^lfed, 
by coamon consent, as r McCarthysim ,|l » 

. . Appendix 24 is a Memorandum analysing Senator McCarthys charges 
in four parts j 1# The McCarthy Charges in General* 2. fhe McCarthy 
Techniques and Methods* 3* the Effects of McCerthyism* A* The Contradictions 
and Conflicts in the McCarthy Charges* 



i* Thy lfcg*rtfty chagrgf 1 ta $mv& 

Various charges made by Senator McCarthy commencing with his speech 
at Wheeling, West Virginia, on February % 1950* are recounted, followed by 
the Committee 1 a comments regarding refutation of such charges* It is noted 
that in a speech at Chicago eirMay 6* 1950, lenator McCarthy included m 
alleged statement by J* idgar hoover that the Amerasia case *is a 100-percent 
airtight case of espionage** She Department ot Justice denied, adds the 
Committee, that Mr* Hoover 'ever made such a statement* Before the Senate on 
June 6, I95O, Senator MeCarttyr charged that the F8I had sent to the State 
Department a chart listing "agents,* "Communists," "sympathisers* and "suspects,* 
according to the report, which adds that no such chart had been prepared by the 
FBI but had been compiled by the State Department on May 15, 1946* 



40 







2« ffie McCarthy Techniques and Methods 

Whder this heading the Committee describee Senator McCarthy's 
most important and shocking technique fie the sweeping accusation unwarranted 
by evidence* listed thereafter are the multiple untruth, manufactured 
evidence, repetition, deliberate perpetuation of confusion, headline 
production and the "Tahoo* (anti-intellectual) appeal* the Coamittee sets 
forth considerable information in support of these appellations* 

3« The Effects of MeCarthyism 

The effects of any given technique, reports the Committee, may - 
not in itself be serious and even the use of a number of them— with some 
restraint-— may be considered a normal phenomenon in the world of practical 
affairs. When, however, these techniques are used by a United States Senator 
under the circumstances of world crisis, and for the purpose of attacking 
the spokesman for the United States in the field of foreign affairs, the 
effects can be expected to be extremely serious* The Committee then 
declares Senator McCarthy's methods and techniques have undoubtedly confused 
our friends and heartened our enemies; diverted the energies of the public 
and public officials j undermined the procedures of the II* 8* Senate and 
democracy by fraudulent inducement of appointment of a special investigating 
committee; demoralised public servants; and deprived individuals of legal 
redress by making unwarranted charge* under cover of Congressional immunity* 

4» Contradictions and Conflicts in the McCarthy Charges 

Under this caption the Committee lists a large nuaber of charges . 
by Senator McCarthy and points out what it terms contradictions and conflicts < 



41 : 



TICKLER 



m 



a 



m : :' 



■^ 



2? 



<*) 



tf T- 



V- 



S*C, Wm "Jerk City 



i^rSl 13, 1^50 



Director, FBI 




<D. 






1S&U * * tiMMiiif wmmsm 



J&tacli^ f » yisur i*^^ 
Senator Joseph 1. MeCartby £ roa Ra^pock, 15& »• 52 f^M%| tt* T01* Sity 5 
datas* larch 22* J$i@> HiU# it MmtfA that aMN^^'teli^ o*s not ®m 
any Isif ©nation p^^iMimg to aBy <P© ^»^»ia% jm W$ ^m^0ms^^ to iajaeaiatety 
irrterriew Up* iroek. J<air J^tirtr^irifhwM, of coua^tg^tfiSst to davalop 
any |mfoBmatl®a 3N&*fcing t© loyalty la Brocks possapMp &*mew&i*^ $#^i»ifet 
«!5>l«ayee«. fa#i2a lane^iateJy and artitel B$jr0« wwtmM^ . f*jaNi&ta« 




Atta^iimt 

r 





1^ 



Tolson__ 



Clegg •• ■«■* 



1 Kichols_ 

| Rosen ' 

1 ■ ,tracy_ 

I Harbo . 



EFHifcg. 



Tele. Kooa^ 

Neass 

Dandy 






6 : a 



^C0/?D£D 



INDEXED -34 













■ «£ ' . 




Jto* 


CO 


O 


^ 


o 










&AJ 


^ 


o 

f 


JX 


/ f\l 


C 


*w 


Z f*~//5 




33 




£ *>*'.;-* •"■"* STANDARD FORM NO. 64 



' Office ML_ 



_?2 •'UNITED 




^ir 4 %^-*- ■* 



FROM 



SUBJECT: 




S GOVERNMENT 



date: May 31,;19$© 



SUBCOMMITTEE OF SENATE FOREIGN^ RELATIONS COMMITTEE 
ALLEGATIONS .OF _SENATCR~ JOSEF#McCA^THr - 



LOYALTY OF £ GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES 



PURPOSE 



f ALL-I^F0mCA'TI0N CONTAINED 
*^m&T$ IS ^CLASSIFIED. ' 
- "EXCEPT r«3EBBSB01ffll .. 

OTHERWISE - 



Clegg 

Glavin__ 
Niohola_ 
Rosen 



Tracy_ 
Harbo_ 
"Mohr 



To advise you generally of the contents of transcripts of 



Tele. Room_ 
Neaee 



testimony presented before the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Ration®?* — JlA x 
Committee arid to recommend that /fchis information b e brought to \Yte^^^ ^k<^^^ 
attention of the Internal Security and Loyalty Sections for their ^infor^*-*^ " 

BACKGROPMD 

On Monday, 5-29-50, there were made available to the Bureau 
20 volumes of the transcript,: of testimony presented before the Subcommittee 
of the Foreign Relations Committee . These volumes have been scanned ancpp 
their contents noted generally as follows: 



■„!MM 



*) 




Volume 1 dated 3-8-50 ,, 

This volume sets forth the purpose and jurisdiction of the Sub-* 
committee and includes also a portion of the testimony of Senator Joseph 
McCarthy concerning alleged Communists in the Waited States Government* 
Case #1U - pages 5-10 
^Case 01^- pages 10- U3 
Judge Dorothy Kenyon, pages U3 - 83* 

Volume 2 dated 3*5-50'. ■ ■ 

This volume contains a conlbinuation of the testimony of 
Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

Case §lk (a high official in the State Department 
charged with doctoring Loyalty Committee records) 
pages 81| - 121;. 
Judge Dorothy Kenyon - pages 12U - 177 • 

Volume 3 dated 3-13-50. N 

This volume contains a continuation of the testimony of 
Senator Joseph McCarthy. 

/Haidore Hanson, pages 179 - 20li 
J Esther C. Brunauer, pages 20U - 22U 
Owen Lattimore, pages 221* - 263* /$*/ 

Volume k, dated 3-li*-50*, RECORDED - 67 
This' volume contains a continuation of €] 
Joseph McCarthy. > 7 



k 




testimony of- Senator 



$ 



\j 



Gustavo Duran, pages 2^"J©13 \'\Z; 

Barlow Shapley, pages 313.- 318 '" 

Alleged' homosexual (unnamed) formerly employed by the 



hi&&v^ $ 



State Department and now by CIA, pages 318 - 323* 




ft 




# t 



John Service and the Jbaerasia Case, pages 321* - 353 
^Professor Frederick L. Schuman, pages 353 - 359* " T 
This volume also contains the testimony of Miss Dorothy 
Kenyan, pages 370 «"2|67« * 

Volume 5 dated 3-20-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of the Honorable Philip C./ 
Jessup . 

Volume 6 dated 3-21-50. 

This volume contains a continuation of the testimony of Senator 
Joseph McCarthy • 

Owen Lattimore 

Honor ablV Philip C. Jessup, page U 
/'Stephen Brunauer, page 12 
Herbert Piers t, page 12 
Charles W. Thayer, page 33. 

Reference is also made in this volume to the removal of 
serials f rem the FBI files in the Kansas City case 
(page 10) and to Senator McCarthy's indirect access to / 

information in FBI files* / 

* . ■ . ■ . . . 

Volume 7 dated 3-27-50. ' 

This volume contains the testimony of the following individuals: 
^Mfs. Esther Brunauer, pages 559 - 613 

Honorable J. Howard McGrath, pages 613 - 656 
Director J. Edgar Hoover, pages 656 - 685. 

Volume 8 dated 3-28*50. 

Thife volume contains the testimony of Haldore Hanson, ' 

pages 686 - 757* 

Volume 9 dated U-5-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of the following individuals: 
Mr*. Donald L. Nicholson, pages 759 - 801 
General Conrad E.. Snow, pages 801 ' -- 835 
Mr. Seth W. Richardson, pages 835 - 861. 

- Volume 10 dated U-6-50. 

This volume 1 contains the testimony of Owen Lattimore, 
pages 863 -' 1030L 

- 2.- ' ' 



i t 



Volume 11 dated U-20-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of the folloTOng individuals: 

Louis Budenz, pages 1032 -.121U 

Brigadier General Elliott R. Thorpe, pages 1211; ■- 12U3. 

Volume 12 dated U-25-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of the following individuals: 

Dr. Bella V. Dodd, pages 12U5 ■- 1316 

Larry E. Ker ley, pages 1316 - 133U* 

Volume 13 dated U-25-50 (A. M.) 

This volume contains a discussion of the procedure to be 
followed before the Committee and also contains "the testimony of Louis 
Budenz concerning Owen Lattimore, pages 112 - lUjJi 

.J^ , Volume Ik dated U-25-50 (P. M.) • , . . 

This volume contains a continuation of the testimony of Louis 
Budenz concerning Owen Lattimore. In his testimony Budenz also mentions 
such people as Ella Winter, Joseph Barnes, Victor Yakhonteff, Harriet L. 
Moore, Gun ttier Stein, Haldore Hanson, Philip C. Jessup and others* 

.'-..-■• : " . -. " ■ v 

Volume 1$ dated U-2 7-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of Earl Russell Browder, 
pages 1335 - lii30. All of this testimony principally concerns Owen 
Lattimore. A number of other individuals of interest to the Bureau 
are also mentioned. 

Volume 16 dated' k-2 8-50. 

This volume contains the •.. testimony of Frederick Vanderbilt 
Field, pages lltfl - ll*95» 

Volume 17 dated $-1-50. 

This volume contains the testimony of the following individuals 
concerning Owen Lattimore: '■ - 

Freda Utley,. pages 1U97 - 16U6 
Demaree Bess, pages 16U7 - 1651* 
'1 ' ' 

Volume 18 dated 5-2-50 • ! 

This volume contains the testimony of Dr. Owen Lattimore, 
pages 1652 -1837. 



- 3 - 




§L : ;*$ 



Volume 19 dated 5-3-50. / 

This volume contains a continuation of the testimony of 
Owen Lattimore, pages 1839 - 19U8. 

• Volume 20 dated 5-!*-50 (A.M.) 
^ This volume contains the testimony of Frank Brooks 0eilaski 
concerning the Amerasia case, pages 257 - 317. v 



OBSERVATIONS . 

The above table of contents is set forth as the result of a 
quick -scanning of the transcripts presently in the possession of the 
Bureaui^ Di keeping with the Director's instructions that, "As soon as 
copy' (of the transcript) is obtained, we should go over it carefully 
for leads and information."/ these volumes are currently being reviewed 
thoroughly for any information or leads that may be developed in connection 
with the case entitled "Owen Lattimore, Espionage - R," (Bureau file 
100-2U628)» incidental to that review, photostatic copies of pertinent 
portions concerning Lattimore will be prepared for transmittal to the 
Baltimore Office. 



RECOIfflffiNDATIGW :. 

J^^^i^^- It is suggested that copies of this preliminary memorandum be 

orwarded to the Internal Security and Loyalty Sections for their in** 
•^H^fe^^^.J formation and that a copy also be forwarded to Special Agent | | 

^/a^L^^ Awho is charged with the supervision of the Amerasia case* Temporarily, 
^v^y-SCl these documents will be retained in a filing cabinet labeled as is this 
$J?'0 memorandum (k ey number Z-600 in Room 76lU), the office of Special Agent 
^^G- j ] where they will be immediately available to Bureau personnel 



be 

b7C 



\having 



an interest in their content* 









:■";-■■£ 



i 






Assistant Attorney General v v /? ;• H 
James M/Mc^ 

Director, FBI;" r ■;'. : V :; ■■ :• V ; .- '// : j.'.'V:. ^¥" 

gOBEION RELATIONS CO!ggTT EE 
LOYALTY OF GOVERNMENT *"~~ 




■ , v •, ''-». 




•. ,<• 



:*■' \ 



rV*W 



Reference i8'm^ r '^:bur^no^da of April 2**, 1950, and May. 12, - 
1950, as well as to your memorandum of May! 23, 1950/ jx ';; : ) , ; ; ^ 

It would be appreciated if you would advise iis as tti Aether you 
have yet been successful in obtaining a copy of the official transcript of 
testimony presentedjbefore the Subcommittee of the Senate Porei^ Selatibn^;- • 
Committee .. '■>; " : .;:;\ ':..;•;/ vy;;, '•.■":■' -"\v- ••'". /•;. ., • " ' \-: : : ■'■■" ■•■/— ' "' " " 



'./£'» 



W^ : %^ 










r 62-91923 



.\. |!MG:jo 







•^ 



Tolsoh 


- .- ' ■■■. :.-\L-. 


Ladd . " 


• " ' ; i 5 * *\ ■'* 


kClegg " 


• .$tt-: 


Kavln 


'^' ; . '••■ •'•.•' ^:* 


^AjlOlS 


. :, -Cf 




^ 'Se 




^'•^ to . 



■•v? 









■ ( - : ^i -fi-i* "??-V :j&" •■* iv 3£v 




•r 




^>- 




June 20^1950: ;" :-' : : ;Vi'.,'.\ 



::j> 



STANDARD FORM NO. 64 



Office MM 






fc A V * 



UTtt • UNITED 







GOVERNMENT 



:/o 



i< 



TO 

FROM 



Tile; Director 



DATE: July 11,- 1950 



D. M. Ladd 



.Q 




SOBjECT^- sUBCO MtS TTEE 0? -THE SENA TE-EOKEIGH. 
• RELATIOKS COMMTTTO^^ 



PURPOSE 






LadQ 

Clegg 

Glavln_ 
Nichols^ 

Rosen 

Tracy 

I!arbo_._ 
Belmont^ 
Mohr 



?cle. Koom_ 

hease 

Gandy 



3?o submit for your information the results of a review of the 
proposec^Findings and Conclusions 1 ' of the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign ^ 
Relations "CofflaTtiS^^c^^erhing information appearing therein which directly'" ^ 
relates to,the FBI „or .FBI personnel » and to also highlight pertinent ccSmenls of 
: EEe^SubconHj^ti^t~^^~ 
BACKGROUND v 

At 4:50 PM on July 10, 1950, a copy of the proposed "Findings and 
Conclusions" of the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 
was made available to the Bureau on a highly confidential basis, it being 
stipulated that no copies should be made nor any notations made thereon. 



^ 



These proposed findings 
formation which directly relates 
being placed on such information 
attempt has been made to compare 
as contained in Bureau files and 
Bureau, no attempt has been made 
statements appearing there in . 



and conclusions have been reviewed for in- 
to the FBI 1 or FBI personnel, special emphasis 
as reflects adversely on the Bureau. No 
the conclusions set forth with the facts 
other than those which directly concern the 
to establish the accuracy or inaccuracy of 




Generally, throughout the report of the findings and conclusions 
of the Subcommittee, references made to the FBI or FBI personnel are commen- 
datory. The findings and conclusions of the Subcommittee are generally 
favorable to the individuals charged by Senator McCarthy, and no recommenda- 
tions for dismissal are made. 




'%jL a ^ tion 



-!D 



Attachment 
EMG:EFF 



The attached memorandum is submitted for your information. 

9 . / V -*&■ 



t ' r 



?$'* 



. I 



* 




ft 



i 



» 



^IPISW?0IASSIFIBD 



FINDINGS AM) CONCLUSIONS 



The "Findings and Conclusions" of the subcommittee contain a 
condemnation of Senator Joseph McCarthy, Therein are quoted statements 
Senator McCarthy is reported to have made as to the number of Communists 
in the State Department, and a statement is made that there is not one 
member of the, Communist Party or of a "spy ring" employed in the State 
Department known to the Secretary, of State or other responsible off icials 
of the Department. The report accuses Senator McCarthy of misrepresenta- 
tion of fact and of misleading and deceiving the Senate, as well as of 
failure to cooperate with the subcommittee. 

In their "Findings and Conclusions," the subcommittee reports 
that their review of the loyalty files concerning "the "8l" individuals 
charged by Senator McCarthy revealed that they did not contain truth 
to support these charges. The subcommittee reported that their inves- 
tigation revealed that the Loyalty Program is of indispensable value 
and was being efficiently administered. In this connection, they found 
(page 7) "That the FBI's loyalty investigations are comprehensive and ■ 
conclusive; with respect to the facts." 

The committee then announced their conclusions with respect 
to individuals publicly charged by Senator McCarthy. Inasmuch as these 
conclusions are specifically set forth in the subcommittee's report, 
which is being made the subject of a separate memorandum in this matter 
of even date herewith, they are not being repeated herein. 

In connection with the conclusion that Haldore Hanson was not 
to be considered disloyal, or a man with proclivities on a mission to 
Communize the world, among other things, the conclusion was stated that 
the only testimony before the Committee indicating Hanson may have had 
any Communist convictions, is that of Louis Budenz,, which leaves the 
Committee "to a degree, in wonderment j^that in the face of the results 
of the FBI. investigation and the Loyalty Board's review of the Hanson 
case, and in consideration of the. evidence before the Committee, the 
Committee could not accept Mr. Budenz 1 testimony as controlling* 

TCLth reference to Dorothy Kenyon, the conclusion was that the 
evidence before the Subcommittee failed to establish Kenyon as a Communist 
or an otherwise disloyal person* It was pointed out that it is apparent 
Kenyon was less than judicious in joining certain organizations during 
the late 30 , saad early 40«s, but that significantly though her name has 
been associated in one manner or another with 20 different cited organiza- 
tions, she was found to be connected on but one occasion with an organization 



>#/-S3 



3n 



1 



t 



after it was cited as subversive* The report further concludes that many 
of the alleged associations were denied or explained and in other cases, 
"she had a great deal of distinguished company* 11 

The Committee further related that "where used for the purpose 
of attaching a stigma of disloyalty upon an individual, membership in 
Communist-front organizations assumes significance in direct proportion 
to the knowledge of the nature of the organization, the character and 
the extent of the participation therein, and the number of affiliations, 
after knowledge, " 



\* 



In connection with their conclusions concerning Owen Lattimore, 
the subcommittee reported (page 15 ) that they had found '"no evidence to 
support the charge that Owen Lattimore is the 'top Russian spy' or, for 
that matter, any other sort of spy. . . . .We have every confidence that were 
Mr . Lattimore an espionage agent the efficient FBI would long since have 
taken action against him. The fact that it has not done so and the further 
fact that we have seen a summary of the FBI's information concerning Mr. 
Lattimore confirms our opinion in this respect." 

These latter conclusions, in so far as they concern the FBI, are, 
of course, unwarranted. It is not within the province of the FBI to 
institute prosecutive action against a subject of investigation, nor can 
the FBI summary of March 22, 1950 (since supplemented by additional inves- 
tigation) he properly construed as. a clearance of Lattimore in connection 
with the . charges made against him. 

The subcommittee reported (pages 15 and 16) that "Owen Lattimore 
is a writer and a scholar who has been charged with a record of pro- 
Communi sm going back many years . There is no legal evidence before us 
whatever to support this charge ....... .we are impelled to comment that 

in no instance has Mr. Lattimore on the evidence before us been shown 
to have kaowingly associated with Communists. 11 

In this connection, it is true that the FBI summary of March 
22, 1950 > containing information concerning Owen Lattimore which was 
displayed to members of the subcommittee, does not in itself constitute 
"legal evidence" of the information therein contained. 

The committee makes the comment (page 17) that "We believe that 
the Lattimore case vividly illustrates. .. .the imperative necessity that 
inquiries relating to matters of such character, where deemed relevant 
to our national security, should be handled by the duly constituted 
agencies of our government that are equipped to handle such matters by 
intelligent and proven methods designed to obtain the truth without 
injustice, character assassination, and a prostitution of the American 
concept of fair play." .. 



3 



4 



• 



^ 



Concerning the conclusions reached regarding John Stewart Service, 
the Subcommittee stated that after carefully considering the evidence, 
it concluded that Service is neither a disloyal person, a pro^Communist, 
nor a security risk* The Subcommittee indicated it was impressed with 
Service «s frankness and cooper ativenessj the fact that he appeared before 
the fraud Jury in August of 1945 where, tyy unanimous vote, he was not 
indicted; and the fact that he has been subjected to almost continuous 
scrutiny during the last five years, being cleared four times by either 
the State Department personnel board or the State Department Security 
and Loyalty Board* It is of interest to note the comment regarding 
"an accepted practice" for State Department officers to impart classified 
information to writers in order to give them background information far 
their articles* The Subcommittee stated that both Mark Oayn and Philip 
Jaf f e were considered reputable newsmen and writers b$ the public in the 
Spring of 1945* and because of the limited number of writers specializing 
oh China, it was natural that Service would expect experts in that field, 
like Gayn and Jaffe to show a greater interest in his material by the 
average writer* The Subcommittee concluded that °Service was extremely 
indiscreet in his dealings with Gayn and Jaffe, a. fact which he readily 
admit s j. that^ perhaps the State Department's administration process was 
at fault in failing to brief its employees coming into Washington on 
short consultations err how thoy should treat the press during their stay; 
but that the Committee could not and would not conclude that his indiscretions 
in the Amerasia matter is sufficient to brand an otherwise competent and 
loyal employee of seventeen years service as disloyal, pro-Communist 
or a security risk* 



\ 



4 



. .'.■■■ AMERASIA CASE . , 

The subcommittee in its findings and conclusions concerning this case 
made certain commendatoiy statements regarding the Bureau as follows: 

o "(B) We find that, after -the' case was referred to it, the FBI conducted 
the investigation with* dispatch and thoroughness and developed the identities of 
all individuals -involved as could be revealed by an exhaustive investigation, 
extending over a three-months period; that the FBI utilized techniques and methods 
in its .investigation -tffaich the exigencies of the situation appeared to require, 
bearing in mind its dual and somewhat incompatible (under existing law) re- ■ 
sponsibility for counter-espionage in wartime on the one hand and the development 
of legally admissible evidence on the other. The FBI discharged its responsibility 
with an efficiency and thoroughness in keeping with the best traditions of that 
agency," ■'■■'' ... *- , ■ ■ ■ . '..'.. .-.*..'. 

Despite the fact. that, sucn credit was given to the Bureau by the sub- 
coimnittee, it is suggested that the words "and somewhat incompatible (under 
existing law)" be deleted from the above paragraph. V r . ' 

"(C) We 1 find that all responsible officials .were properly concerned 
' relative to the serious implications of the jtaerasia case,, ,as it could be gauged 
at the outset, and that the President of the United States personally called an 
FBI official, instructing that .the case should be handled with all possible 
dispatch. " ^~^,^. ^ .^ , .._,_//■'/ - - • 

"(H) We find that three bodies have now investigated the toerasia case- 
(1) a committee of the House of Representatives in 194-6, (2) : a .special Grand 
■■Jury- in- New lork ^ity* in 1950, and (3) this subcommit tee—and that each inquiry 
has established that the case was not improperly handled either by the FBI in 
the investigation or the Department of Justice in the prosecution* '» 



9 *q*a*<^^ 



k :f 





^jty 



/ 



• 



Regarding the general charges of disloyalty in the State Department, 
the Committee stated it found that the sources were essentially: (1) material 
developed \>f investigators of a House Committee in 1947 from loyalty files, 
which material was considered by four separate committees, of the Republican- 
controlled 80th Congress and was not regarded as justifying a report concerning 
the matter* (2) Information from a letter dated July 26 > 1946, of Secretary 
James F« Byrnes giving a contemporaneous report concerning the screening and 
weeding out of questionable individuals transferred to the State Department 
fr&a emergency wartime agencies* (3) A perversion of the testimony of 
General Patrick J* Hurley before the Senate' Foreign Relations Committee in 
December, 1945* (4) Alfred Kohlberg, New York importer and financial backer, 
"Plain Talk 11 magazine* (5) An article concerning the Amerasia case appearing 
in the October, 1946 edition of "Plain Talk" magazine, indicated to have been 
written by Emmanuel S» larsen.and subsequently repudiated by hinu 

In the list of conclusions, a statement is included regarding the 
Committee having been subjected to an organized campaign of unwarranted and . 
unfair villlfication, which included repeated charges that the Committee was 
attempting to "whitewash" the State and Justice Departments* 

In the conclusions set forth^ the statement is made, "We are fully 
satisified that the FBI and the security staff of the State. Department are 
eminently qualified to ferret out individuals who may be disloyal in the 
State Department"; furthermore, that public Congressional, inquiries on the 
question of disloyalty, particularly in view of the fact that the standard 
for judgment is necessarily highly subjective, tend inevitably to prejudice 
unfairly and with . complete immunity and. impunity the reputations, careers, and 
very livelihood of many innocent people; that the development of facts 
concerning charges of disloyalty, even where ample evidence exists in the 
initial instance to indicate its verily, should be done in an efficient, 
intelligent, and unobstrusive manner by the FBI with its thousands of trained 
investigators and nation-wide facilities* 

In conclusion, the Committee stated that inquiries of the character ±m 
pressed upon us are justified only where evidence exists that our duly 
constituted agencies of Government have failed to discharge their duty; that 
despite irresponsible representations to the contrary, the Committee found 
that absolutely no such evidence existed as a predicate for its inquiry in that 
after an intensive investigation, there is still no such evidence* The 
Committee went on to state that it felt that one of the most reprehensible 
aspects and unfortunate result of unwarranted charges of the type made in this 



%<* 






matter is the actual injury done to the true fight against Communism; that 
such charges, being unproved and not subject to proof, have the effect of 
dulling the awareness of our people to the menace of Communism necessarily 
embarrass and expose the methods and techniques of our intelligence agencies 
charged with protecting our security, interfere .with and compromise their 
confidential investigations, destroy the effectiveness of confidential 
informants, and inevitably gives basis for ridicule of those who fight 
Communism with Truth, the only weapon with which it can be destroyed* 

A 

It is of particular interest to note the strong language used in 
the final conclusion of the Subcommittee, which states $ 

H At a time when American blood is again being shed to preserve 
our dream of freedom, we are constrained fearlessly and frankly to call the 
charges and the methods employed to give them ostensible validity what they 
truly are:- a fraud and a hoax perpetrating on the Senate of the United States 
and the American people* They represent perhaps the most nefarious campaign 
of half-truths and untruth in the history of this Republic* For the first 
time in our history, we have seen the totalitarian technique of the f Big LLe f 
employed on a sustained basis* The result has been to confuse and divide the 
American people, at a time when they should be strong in their unity, to a 
degree far beyond the hopes of the Communists themselves whose stock-in-trade 
is confusion and division* In such a disillusioning setting, we appreciate 
as never before our bill of rights, a free press, and the heritage of freedom 
that has made this nation great* n 



CTIQN 



The conclusion of the Subcommittee concerning the Amerasia case 
which referred to the FBI's tt dual and somewhat incompatible responsibility" 
is wholly incorrect* The reference to incompatible responsibility appears 
to be a gratuitous statement which it is recommended should be deleted ffromt 
the, findings and conclusions* 



7 



~ FB^ESAL bubeau OF INVEST I ^Aff ion 



Room 5744 



"7-il 



m 

, 1950 



TO: 



Director 
.Mr . Lad d. 
Mr. CI egg 
.Mr* • Glavin 
.Mr* . Har do 
.Mr*. Nicnol 
.Mr*. Rosen 
Mr . Tracy 
.Mr . Belmon 
Mohr 
Carlso 
Callaln 
Nease 
Gandy 



Mr. 

Mr. 

Mr. 

.Mr. 

.Miss 

.Personnel 

Records Se 

.Mrs . Ski lima 



See Me 



Send. File 



For App 



Note 




= HL^*£g*=B=» 



^ 



& 



wt^ 



Clyde Tolson 



* 



j^^jj22E«£^5E!^^^^22S2^^™SJ«S^22!!«52«22i22»3Eii» 



r AIjL lOTCBMATIO^COHTAlNED 



Ibe "Fiadiags and Cuacluaions" of tha subccaaittee coafcain a 
cpndeanatioa of Senator Joaepfc HcCerthy. Therein are quoted tt«taMli 
Senator HoCarttgr is reports to have aade as to the nuofcer of Cii — imU te 
ia the State Dssartaeat, and a stetaaeat Is wide tfcet there la sot ooe . 
aenber Qt Wm CnwimiJt Party or af a ^sfy ■»*•§* ^1<#*& t» tte State 
Bepartaent kaeaa to tile SaoMrtwry at State or othr; rasfeasfbla official* 
of the Bepartatat, »e report accuaaa Senator McCarthy trf ai*iap?a*isrfca~ 
tStan oT Jteet «ad of aisleadlng aad deceiving tfee Senate, as nail m* of 
ffciiare to coajperate #£*& tha ewfccaeelttee* 

Ia their "riaUage enA ©^a^lasiaae*" tha subcoaelttee reports 
that their ratlaa. of *&• iqgraltgr ftl«* eoa^afcalssg the ^Sl* isdtrMuals 
eharged .-iqr Saaetor McCarthy «wia3aid that ttoey did not contain truth 
to eu$?ert ****■• charge*. The avbcooeittee reported that IMUr inves- 
tigation revealed that tha Loyalty Prograa Sa off iadisyeasable mta* 

(page 7) *Shai the JSX*a lojalijr £*wstip*t$eaa sera ccaprebeasive 
eoaclaefas «it& reapacfc ta the fsacta** 



tha r remittee thaa announced thair conclusioaa mtb respect 
to individTaal* publicly charged fey Senator McCarthy, Ia&aauch aa thee* 
©oaclusicaa* are specifically set ftir^i la tha asbccaaittee'e report* 
which Sm being aaie taut subject of a aepereta asoortrtm in this aattar 
ot mm Asia herewith, they are ant baiag r ay aa tad hsoraia. 



In connection with tha conclusion that ifcldors Hanson was not 
to ba considered disloyal, or i. aaa aith proclivities on a mission t© 
Gaaannlse the world, among other things, tha conclusion was statad that 
tha only tastiaony before tha Conmlttaa indicating Hanson nay hava had 
any Coaaraniat esavlstions, is that of Louis Budens, which leaves tha 
Cossaittee *ft* a dagraa* In aonderaent| "that in tha face of tha results 
of tha FBI inveaELgation and the Ijoyalty Board f a raviaa of tha lianson 
caea, and in com! deration of tha avidanca bafora tha CoBsaittaa, tha 
; Coaaiittaa could not acoapt Mr* Budan»* testimony as controlling* 

lUth refarance to Darathgr Kany on, tha eoncluaion aas that tha 
©videnca bafora the Subcgmmitteo filled to astablish Kenyan aa a Coa^nniat 
or an othamise disloyal par eon. It was pointed oat that it is apparant 
Kenyon was laaa than judicious in joining certain organisations during 
; tha lata 30'sand aarly UO's, but that significantly though her naaa has 

j ba«a asaooiatad in one aann«r or another with 20 different cited organise- 

j tiona, aha was found to ba connected m but one occasion with an organization 

n 



-vo 



i 



after SuK^BaaOgB,*''' 




' ■ 


' : ■..-. 7 


■*••. ' -' '■*."* " ''■• \ ' 


' / 




V *';■*..- ' > 


\. -. w * '.:_=, 


«'. ■ ^=v. / 7 


ToiaonV "' *•" 


.■"'**" (- ' " >! 


1 Ladd • ' 




CXagg // -- 1 




Olavln.' '*'■ 


'.•'."'. 


Nichols' '.* 


■■ , .'; *-" ' ' 


Roaen 


" ^ ■' 


Tracy 


'■'*:*. '- ' ' 


• Harbo ''.-.■'. 


f. ■* . 


- MOhr *'■" 


' ..V " »•'. ' " 


.Tele. Room_ 




Mease - 




dandy =■* 


. ; ^" o" ,* .-7 



\7-* 



s?' *■ 



-=7F ■■: ■■> 7 






■'.■.■ . • ' - 



2\ 






§ ■■'::■'[ : : ;i 



la cosaeciioa with their eoacXwioas eoaoerniag timm lattiaore* 
the stS&conwlttee reported (page 15) that they Sad foaad n m> evidence to 
£i#port the charge that Owea tettlisore is t&e *top Bus&iak spy* or* for 
that aratter* aay other sort of spy* .**Jfe have every confidence that srere 
»fc* lattaas^re as espionage agent $&e eff icie&t WBt wooM Wm siftce basre 
take® actios against Mar, fbe fact thfctr It lap aot dose so and t^ f *a*«fc^r 
fact that lie ttaire sees* a SOTtaary of the 19X*a iaforawa^oa ^cmc^i&jig 8r* 
iattlttore coafirae ota? opiaioa in tfcis ; .«flf*e*** 

These latter comlmt<m* t& so far as they coae^n the tfBI* are, 
of bourse y aiawrraated; It is not within the proviace of the ISX to 
i&siitute prosecutive actios agaiast a Aub^ect of investigation, wm east 
the ISI suamary of March gg* I950 (siiice si^ieaeated by afi&itioail imm^ 
ttgatioa) be lar^pKTly cons^riatM as a clearaace of l^ttljiore to conaeetlos 
«£ ih $he charges pade agal^t^^^ v 

Tbe f^cdM^ttee reported (pages 15 aad 16| that w Owea I^ttlaore 
is a writer aad a scholar who has been charged with & record of pro- 
CoamniniSBi goicg baclraaay years, fhere ia no legal evidence before w 
Whatever to support this charge.* * ... ,im are iapeliad to corateat that 
in so l^taace has Mr. iattiaore pa the evidence before us beea shown 
to fcavetooiit^^ 

Is this c©aiieetio% it is true ^at the FBI Bwm&y of March 
22, 1950 ^ costeiaiag information comcerniag Owea lattiaorefvhich was 
displayed to aeabers of the s^eoia&ttee, doe* act is itself constitute 
^legal e^derae* of ihe ijtforrofctoa thereia costaiaed: 



ccasartttee laake* the comeat (page 1?) thfc* n Me believe that 
the I&ttimere case vividly iltotrate? * * *.1^ iaap^^w i^ceaeity that 
tof^iriea relatiag to usattera of a^tch character, where deejaed relevant 
to our national security* should he haadled by the dt&y coastituted 
ageseies of our go^eraas^t that are egp$|#ed to haadle statck natters by 
iatelligeiit asd proves aethods designed to obtaia the truth without 
la^tastice, character assassination, m& a prostitution of i$m iteerlcaa 
concept of fair plfty.* 1 " 



3 






rV ;*. A 



'\?M 



ili^ ^ti^Hi^M4#^ -^^titiNi' ttai. *<*$»- -Isa^ ; . :':"■"./ 

''ls'dl«t^ -«n£ tbe* fact: tfctfe : &« '£$Ms* , %**&. sia)b;j*ei#3 .to' &2&o&fe -««AJU9«mii . " * ; "> / . .. 

fcb* :sfc#to 5^rt^w% $*a*3<^^ <W ttsa ;?&&&$ p^m^m^ itt&Mf y : " , ' : ■■' 

irwwi^'iiis^*-.. ttap'OAeo^M^ thai '*aw»^«# - i^;-«dbr<MM%gr ' 

liKfitn«p^«*.-t^: **i* flings m^:^^. : m^ ^^ * Jtecft \lM&£tt. && «wkUJJr- '*". : - . -I 

&*t .Mat- fc&is Oq«jatlw» ;«eold-.wt #sci*^M>^ 'tt&dirtfc tiiiw'-tofe ^imli^m^i^m; 

'tar '.*■ im*£^3% 'fffcriu' ' - V- ■". -> J : '\:- ^> ;; :v - ' ^-r '■■ "■: ", \ .<-■■'■■ -- : - 

' v/< - -, ■'■:■' ■:.-■;■ .-■:■ -w-> : y * ■'v' v .■■■'■ ■'-■■;■■■■'-'-■ ■■- •>■ -:■ aul ■' \ 



&'& :'~& : 



• Lafld ■ . 



jGlavin- 



•Nlchols_ 

Rosen * 

Tracy 
Harbo J 



I Tele; 



Nease^ 
Oahdy 



! 






'*■*'■ 



■'■'.V 



^^&:?^3^'- 









;^iw 





'■' ■ .'■*•* '"•*'■ , i ' ' ' " 


: f '» - .~* \: n '_<: 


■V' ■ , v*'- ■ J f . ^H:- 






^ i- 



# ■"■■ t 



AUERASIA CASE 

the suboowBlttac In its finding* and conclusions concerning this case 
mads certain cosaacadatoxy etate»*nta regarding the Bureau m follows* 

»(B) Hi find that, after the case wee referred to it f the FBI conducted 
toe investigation with dispatch and thoroughness and developed the identities of 
all individuals involved a* could be revealed by an exhaustive investigation 
extending over a three-months period} that the FBI utilised techniques and method* 
in its investigation which the exigencies of the situation appeared to require, 
bearing in $lnd its dual and somewhat incompatible (under existing law) re- 
sponsibility for counter-aspionaga in wartis* on the one hand and the development 
of legally adftiselfcle evidence on the other* f he FBI discharged its responsibility 
with an efficiency and thoroughnees in keeping with the best tradition* of that 
agency** 1 

Despite the fact that such oreoit was given to the Bureau by the sub- 
comittee, it is suggested that the word* "and soaewbat incompatible (under 
existing law) 91 be deleted front the above paragraph. 

"(C) We find that all responsible official* were properly concerned 
relative to the serious implications of the A»erasia ease/ as it could be gauged 
at the outset, and that the President of the United States personally called an 
FBI official, instructing that the case should be handled with all possible 
dispatch. « 

"(H) Is find that three bodies have now investigated the Amerasia case*— 
(1) a cowed ttee of the fibuse of Representatives in 1946, (2) a special Grand 
t&xy i» Ifow Itotk *&ty in 1920, and (3) this eubcomittee— and that each inqui;ry 
has established that the mm was not improperly handled eitter by the JBI la 
the inveatigation or the Dapartment of justice in the prosecution," 



Tolso n 

Ladd 

Clegg 

Glavln 

Nichols 

Rose n 
Trac y 
Harfa o ; 

Itoftr 

Tele. roob_ 

Nease_ 

Gaudy 



♦ 



' ; l:-: 



Regarding the general charges of disloyalty in the State Department, 
the Committee stated it found that the sources were essentially: (1) material 
developed by investigators of a Bouse Committee in 1947 from loyalty files, 
which material was considered by four separate committees of the Republican- 
controlled 80th Congress and was not regarded as justifying a report concerning 
the matter* (2) Information f*om a letter dated July 26, 1946* of Secretary 
James F* Byrnes giving n contemporaneous report concerning the screening and 
weeding out of questionably individuals transferred to the State Department 
from emergency wartime agencies* (3) A perversion of the testimony of 
General Batriek J* Hurley before the Senate Foreign Relations Coto&ttee in 
December, 1945* (4) Alfred Ifchiberg, Weir York importer and financial backer, 
"Plain talk* magasine* (5) An article concerning the Amerasie case appearing 
in the October, 1946 edition of "Plain Talk" magasine, indieaifel to have been 
written by Emanuel S* Larson and subsequently 4 repudiated by mM* 

In the list of conclusions, a statement is included regarding the 
Committee having been subjected to an organised campaign of unwarranted and 
unfair viilif ication, which included repeated charges that the Committee was 
attempting to "whitewash* the State and Justice Departments « 

In the conclusions set forth, the statement is made, *te are fully 
satisified that the FBI and the security staff ef the State Department are 
eminently qualified to ferret out individuals who may be disloyal in the 
State Department" j furthermore, that public Congressional inquiries on the 
question of disloyalty* particularly in view of the fact that the standard 
for judgment is necessarily highly aubjee^fcjre, tend inevitably to prejudice 
unfairly and with complete Immunity and i&0nity the reputations, careers, end 
very livelihood of many innocent people j that the development of facto 
concerning charges of disloyalty, even where ample evidence exists in the 
initial instance to indicate its verity, should be done in an efficient* 
intelligent, and unobstrusive manner by the FBI with its thousands of trained 
investigators and nation-wide facilities » 

m conclusion, the Committee stated that inquiries of the character is** 
pressed upon us are justified only where evidence exists that our duly 
constituted agencies of Government have failed to discharge their duty; that 
despite irresponsible representations to the contrary, the Gewaittee found 
that absolutely no such evidence existed as a predicate for its inquiry in that 
after an intensive investigation, there is still no such evidence* The 
Conmdttee went on to state that it felt that one of the most reprehensible 
aspects and unfortunate result of unwarranted charges of the type made in this 



§ 




matter is the actual injmy don© to the true fight against Coinmunismi that 
such charges, being unproved and not subject to proof , have the effect of 
dulling the awareness of our people to the menace of Coramunism necessarily 
embarrass arid expose the methods and techniques of our intelligence agencies 
charged with protecting our security, interfere with and compromise their 
confidential investigations, destroy the effectiveness of confidential, 
i^forssants, and inevitably gives baaia for ridicule of those who fight 
Cojaaunism with truth* the ox&p weapon with which it can be destroyed* 

It is of particular interest to note the strong language need in 
the final conclusion of the Itoca&isittae, which states* 

*At a time when African blood is again being shed to preserve 
our dream of freedom/ we are constrained fearlessly and frankly to call the 
chargss and the methods employed to give the* ostensible validity what they 
truly are:- a fraud and a hoax perpetrating on the Senate of the Ttaited States 
and the American people* They represent perhaps the most nefarious campaign 
of half-truths and untruth in the history of this Republic* For the first 
time incur history, we have seen the totalitarian technique of the f Big lie 1 
employed on a sustained baeis# the result has been to confuse and divide the 
American people, at a time when they should be strong in their unity, to a 
degree far beyond the hopes of the Comunists themselves whose stock~in~trade 
is confusion and division* Jn such a disillusioning setting, we appreciate 
as mrer before our bill of rights, a free press, and the heritage of freedom 
that has i^de this nation great# H 

mm '" ; • - 

fhe conclusion of the Subcommittee concerning the Aieerasia case 
which referred to the HI 1 a *dual and somewhat incompatible responsibility* 
is wholly incorrect* The reference to incompatible responsibility appears 
to be a gratuitous statement which it is recommended should be deleted trm 
the findings and conclusions* 



7 



ce^^raf '-> y 



r ,,. A 



FROM: ■;;.;■; 
PURPOSE 



- s-i 



k 



OFFICE MBMORMDUM;- - UKITED ;STAJfiS • GC^MMENT .. 




'-Mr.*V A..; % H?»'-. Be.lmont,Y. C : '•• ■■ . '•, • ''•'' f ; 
•:CVi[. Stanley 'y : ;• v \ '. 

,E0 YALTY ,GF- GOVEfflMEN T EMPLOYEES 



.DATE r^.'June./ 30, .1950. '.'. 
rr AEL INFOiMAT ION .GONjTAIMED 



■ ■'■'■'" t ' ■". •:' /'To. ; cqijm^^ of Excerpts .From ■• 

V >Chief Vir^^B^g^toir 1 s Repoft ; !br^fete ; \Depar-feient Loyalty Fits s- found bV- i 
■ .: the .Few" York Office in going through the. files of Dr. J., ,B. Matthews .'< . ■.*-, 



MGKGROW.Bv 



'■*•-.> 



•,'■; -Dr.; J* B. Matthews recently made* available to v th9-^Bl^r0au;O9rtain•• 
files-. ;maM'tai£ed- by-h^Lifl for'} examination for- information. ..of possible pertinence ;. 
to the ;io;ya:}^ ; 

1 Se'rvioe:;^3;^BaLld6-ref'-' Sanson tod; the iesp ion age investigation 'bf '.Owen C. 'Lai^timore . •';; \ 
•• In' connaatiGnvwith this examination'. the Agents came across a- photos-tat id 4qcu ->'"■•• . ' : 
. ment entitled ^Photos tats, of 'Excerpts . From Chief Investigator ' s jRe port \o\f . ,.-... .";. ■/ 
..■.S'taite iepartmeh^ Loyalty Files.". They asked • Dr. \ Mat thews where'.he had obtained- ;., 
.it and,-, although he .gave a rather 'evasive answer, he very -readily' offered to' - 
give the'Agahts^a photostatic copy of the document./ Furthermore, :he did hot ; - */ , 
v seem Concerned that this' document : was in ; his files nor di d. he make any .effort v 
to' conceal. , its /presence* there ..- . ,. y • •:';>■- . ■:.:;■-'■: ■ ■ '* -. ' : " -'' . - : ' J -' : . " '•'■*. 

• .;". ./••'An examination of : the. ,'do cum en t. /in /question reveals that it. is obviously 

• incomple te'. ■■■. \J t is la be lied fr '0b v s e rva t ions ' and Fin'din gs V- and. c onta in- s pa ragraph s 
numbered 8/ 9^ 10 and: 17 ♦ • .From;■.■tlf^■e" , nature of the ' document-it apparently is -the 

• observations, and- f indihgs; of : Jsomepne who conducted a survey /bj^/the security files 
.of .the .State 3De par tme.nt./ 'Generally,' the -observations and findings indicate that 
'the 'Security^ Division of . the. State Department has $o records-;. ;tc" clearly show who / 

l^ave or who/have .not' been ' investigate d;and^ is, ^kd^b; is Jnot; presently em-;// 

' ployed v.; A 'comment >isv made, that • iris tances. were noted where,, the^ivl si on had pend- 
iilg. investigations; on applipants" although, neither D.P. ( Domes tic Personnel) rio.r. - ; 
F.P.. \( Fore ;ign^ Pers onnel) had a record indicating- they were considering t^ese 
applicants; " : The 'document make/si .•.sl' -'further comment /concerning the distribution of 
the caseload /of Agents conducting investigations for the State De par. tine nt in the 
Washington and New York * reas; and in J this ^ connection it^is, mentioned naimber 

of alleged' Cpmmuhist Party ..p^.-jiltiqn "signers- had "never -be tert checked out and cites 
as . examples ^^s©s-3Jps., 28, 29, 30,' 81 .^nd^S^i- .The document, in -quest ion. also 
refers;, to th^' c ina^dequacy o^:;the^ State> Department' system- pdf : changing* out-- Tiles and. ; 
''^he''-ove'r-aiT'';I-?i , ^e.ss^^ Handling 'of documents, :citing^ ;as ;e:x^mpl%s. file, jaa^ • 

-for .which there were'Ytio cases .in the .files a.nd.^Jac-ket's '• being out 6f "vfiie^ without : 



charge-out, , papers; missing from files obviously be I on ging there ejid r np charge to 



ou± 



slips to -indipate whereabouts:- of • mis:sing. papers 






I fa t*/ *:$£:,?£}**•? . 









&\.: <■• 






'.'"•' "".■•■•.; -Ih "furnishing a ob^y ^pfthis^ document to the Bureau by le.tter dated June 
-1950, the -:lf ; ew York O^f fioe-, pointed " out^ that ^ in the 

' "dbaument possibly mighX/be • iden ti ca 1 wi th '>the nuriibe r s use d • by Senator McCarthy in 

-Z :: :'- ■■.; ^v.:/ ; vvv :'■■■::■. -/•:,',;• ■.',-. ^: ; :l,--. ■ . :- ;:.;;. ■'y-". : --/'--:- , ' : : ''"•'# 
-;■.-;:' i '. ; .,'.'-- ; ^? ;•;■'-•;; '■.'•: W>c;- ;■.:. ••-fr::.- \,^ '..;..;'.?■-■. ■':■'..:'■' ■■:■'.■ ^-«^ 



8» 






^ 



* 



,/^Vbpy:raf 



-4R 



& ■ >.V. 



■fc^r. 



' ^55*jt<- 



1 



33 



^connection, with-his 'r^oentJa t irega±i6ns ooh'oeraong -the State, Department;: New "York' . ;, 
: pointe d blit that, .; the': '- do o uraen t , . :al-ih ough^.ndt ; mar ke d '' con £ld6n t ia 1 , ; a ppe ar e d ' to '•; c on <. . . : 
,..-tain-;-'i3ttf ormatipn^whioh ..prbbably ;w^s;nqi4of. .the 4;ype^t6 t be disseminate d ; outside -' ; - '.: ' ". 
the State T)j9partment; and the Bureau /might desire .- to donfi'dentiariy advise jhe : _ . 

: ! Sta,te.lDefartment- : that there are. cogues "outside; of .that Department, - ;j / : '. " ',' '\ '-' : --''. : 

:'J "'■ :\\ -, /There is no, wayv of ^course ; : /by^ .' : ' 

document. ,!H6weveriv it /is my belief ? ^at it 'is a ^r^ 

former^ jSA : Robert E. Lee in .oqhne^tibn "with the .hearings before 1^e' Subcommittee •■'"' '* 
of, the -House ^Committee on Appropriations, on : ^ '" ; 

Bill 'fpir 1949K, -^is ^belief is/par^n^ cases v" : 

.Hos '. .2.8, ■■; 29, '30, 3T and 32 >t .Mvioh' are \oase ; i±^bers used in Lee's; report,. Furthermore*, 
the document f in question "refers :: ^0;. investigations to be conducted, presumably l>y :•; '■>% 
Sta't:e Depa rtmarit investigator s ,f c^^erning employees' Whpitave signed/ Corrfeuiist Party ■-.-" 
petitions; arid obviously this, ihVe^s^ juris diction -now- lies with the: Bureau / - 

under- Sxeoutive" Order ,9835. ^ftlsv^o^Qr "''further, leads to the belief that .this is , 
■a -portion' of v the s Lee Report- wKi&fc was , of course ,; prepared at,.-just- about- the time t - - \* 
the Loyalty 1 ^Prpgrara '?was • getting ' undfr way. --.We, of course, .have a copy of ;)tfcte -Lee 
report 'dndsotf as ; fesli ^individuals'. but we* • do hot^:hs:ve this cpmplpte-; > - 

report and:;it -is /be iieyed thdt -the ^document, submitted 'by the '.&ew>Yb.rk; Office '^ -''■■ ., 7 
probably is' \a" portion of the summary of .his •observations' artd findings concerning J - l 
the "general .'conditio files' at "the; time^e- made, a survey \ 

■.of -them - for , the Subcommittee of- the; Cpimltte «V ph: ■ Appropr ia tions!^ : House- of ; . , . "V ' 
^Representatives <r \ How this' /material; 1 came = Into 7 ithe7 possess ipn of t)r7. il. Bv ^atthews^ 
ofvoourse^ is : unknpwn.j ■:■ ~-77''' V;.:'. , Wi,.-/ * -. ^ "/- ,7-.'~ /. 7 7 -J.:;'- '*■,,' '7' .- . : . *:/. 7 , ' : '■ -. ■■'* 



fficm^*'>^ ;: ■•'■-- 7.^-.' ;: *'7/ 7- ■:/:■ ■ :.■'»; ^-^ ;>.'•'■'■>- -.■•••■.,]: -77£. .;■"■""■ ." ,: . ■';,. -; ■.'>■■'■:•■■■ \l 

■-.: -vX./ Since the do'cumen't is: brieve d; to Jbe v'a portion of the- Lee .report, -ttiere V> ■■' 
Would' appejar, to be. no ./reason for alvi'si^g .thp State .De partrrien t\"pf ■ f -^e- ; ;: f-ao t t. e .$hat'.' 
.copies „ar^ii the p^ of State • ■ From ; : 

.the ^recent allegation s of Senator v McCar^y,^ I^guite -pbyious that other- copies \ '" 
of, -this material are in the possession of individuals outside- tHe ;Bxecutiye Branch ' - 
of the. Government... Jit Is , accbrdi^lyi rpc^mmen^ "- ; 

with respect -to~ this -partiouMr .master i' '.■"'■'"■" ' '\ ■■..■ r .."•■"' " ' ' ' *; . : . ." ' £ 



taken 



V V: 



/4 '■ r ^,.' 






FEDERAL- BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

FOIPA 
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET 

No Duplication Fees are charged for Deleted Page Information Sheet(s) 

Total Deleted Page(s) ~ 3 
Page 44 ~ bo" ? b7C 
Page 45 ~ bo\ b7C 
Page 46" ™ bo", b7C